Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?

[Alexandre Janssens]

Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?

Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about five
dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air base in
Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of explosives hitting
the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and stored munitions.

Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to, say,
"ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with aerodynamic lift
like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9

Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why it's
called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it flies at a
constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile, where this
wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided" (as opposed to a
"rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile

So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?
Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about five
dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air base in
Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of explosives hitting
the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and stored munitions.
Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to, say,
"ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with aerodynamic lift
like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9
Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why it's
called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it flies at a
constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile
That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile, where this
wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided" (as opposed to a
"rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

We need to look at the meaning of the word "cruise".

Dictionary definitions of the verb "cruise" use phrases such as:

travel at a moderate speed

to fly, drive, or sail at a constant speed that permits maximum
operating efficiency for sustained travel.

to travel at a moderately fast, easily controllable speed

And "cruising speed":
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cruising_speed

A speed for a particular vehicle, ship, or aircraft, usually
somewhat below maximum, that is comfortable and economical.

The point about a cruise missile is that it "cruises" to its target at a
steady speed.

[Whiskers]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?
Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about
five dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air
base in Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of
explosives hitting the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and stored
munitions.
Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to,
say, "ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with
aerodynamic lift like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9
Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why
it's called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it
flies at a constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile
That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile, where
this wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided" (as
opposed to a "rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled
guided thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

We need to look at the meaning of the word "cruise".
travel at a moderate speed
to fly, drive, or sail at a constant speed that permits maximum
operating efficiency for sustained travel.
to travel at a moderately fast, easily controllable speed
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cruising_speed
A speed for a particular vehicle, ship, or aircraft, usually
somewhat below maximum, that is comfortable and economical.
The point about a cruise missile is that it "cruises" to its target at
a steady speed.

A 'cruise missile' isn't necessarily 'guided'; the WWII V1 and V2
weren't, they were just launched in the desired direction and programmed
(or given enough fuel) to fall out of the sky at the desired distance.

I'm not sure that a 'cruise' missile has to manage 'aerodynamic flight',
but that's certainly the most likely way of sustaining a steady speed in
level or controlled flight through atmosphere.

A 'guided' missile doesn't have to 'cruise'.

A missile doesn't have to be guided or aimed, merely launched. The WWII
V1 and V2 were not guided, and they were only 'aimed' in the loosest
sense of the word.

[Alexandre Janssens]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The point about a cruise missile is that it "cruises" to its target at
a steady speed.

A 'cruise missile' isn't necessarily 'guided'; the WWII V1 and V2
weren't, they were just launched in the desired direction and programmed
(or given enough fuel) to fall out of the sky at the desired distance.
I'm not sure that a 'cruise' missile has to manage 'aerodynamic flight',
but that's certainly the most likely way of sustaining a steady speed in
level or controlled flight through atmosphere.
A 'guided' missile doesn't have to 'cruise'.
A missile doesn't have to be guided or aimed, merely launched. The WWII
V1 and V2 were not guided, and they were only 'aimed' in the loosest
sense of the word.

I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come close to
a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use with that puny
thousand pound payload.

But I agree with you that the word "cruise" doesn't seem to have any
relationship to the fact that the cruise missile needs to also be a guided
missile.

I'm guessing from the responses that the "cruise" part of the missile is a
combination of the fact it
1. Flies aerodynamically so it can go a long distance "cruising" around
2. Flies straight and low so it "cruises" around non ballistically

I'm not sure how that differs from a drone, which must cruise around non
ballistically also.

Maybe the fact that drones are guided differently defines the difference
between a drone missile and a cruise missile. Plus drones probably don't go
all that far from home.

[ErrolC]

On Saturday, 8 April 2017 06:55:49 UTC+12, Alexandre Janssens wrote:
...

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I'm not sure how that differs from a drone, which must cruise around
non ballistically also.
Maybe the fact that drones are guided differently defines the difference
between a drone missile and a cruise missile. Plus drones probably don't go
all that far from home.

There are drones the size of small airliners that perform autonomous trans-oceanic travel. Their owners call them UAVs, UASs or RPAs.
It's mainly intent - things generically and colloquially known as drones are normally intended to be available for re-use after performing a mission (if they aren't, they are 'disposable drones').

--
Errol Cavit

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I'm not sure how that differs from a drone, which must cruise around non
ballistically also.
Maybe the fact that drones are guided differently defines the difference
between a drone missile and a cruise missile. Plus drones probably don't go
all that far from home.

Drones are meant to remain aloft for long times, and then return. They
are designed to be pilotless aircraft. Cruise missiles are single-use.

[Alexandre Janssens]

Post by Horace LaBadie
Drones are meant to remain aloft for long times, and then return. They
are designed to be pilotless aircraft. Cruise missiles are single-use.

While it's appreciated that there is a difference between a drone and a
cruise missile, none of that explains why the single-use missile is called
a "cruise" missile, and why a drone isn't called a cruise drone.

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Horace LaBadie
Drones are meant to remain aloft for long times, and then return. They
are designed to be pilotless aircraft. Cruise missiles are single-use.

While it's appreciated that there is a difference between a drone and a
cruise missile, none of that explains why the single-use missile is called
a "cruise" missile, and why a drone isn't called a cruise drone.

A drone isn't always in cruise mode.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Alexandre Janssens
While it's appreciated that there is a difference between a drone and a
cruise missile, none of that explains why the single-use missile is called
a "cruise" missile, and why a drone isn't called a cruise drone.

Because there's no distinction that needs making.

-- Richard

[Alexandre Janssens]

Post by Richard Tobin
Because there's no distinction that needs making.

Both a drone and a cruise missile are launched from the ground, fly
aerodynamically through the atmosphere, are guided by some mechanism to a
target, and then they blow up on the target.

[charles]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
Because there's no distinction that needs making.

Both a drone and a cruise missile are launched from the ground, fly
aerodynamically through the atmosphere, are guided by some mechanism to a
target, and then they blow up on the target.

both can be air-launched. The drone carries missiles.

[Alexandre Janssens]

Post by charles
both can be air-launched. The drone carries missiles.

Thank you for clarifying that the drone itself isn't the missile.
I thought the drone was what "landed" on terrorists' heads.

Do drones fire "cruise" missiles or "ballistic" missiles?

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by charles
both can be air-launched. The drone carries missiles.

Thank you for clarifying that the drone itself isn't the missile.
I thought the drone was what "landed" on terrorists' heads.
Do drones fire "cruise" missiles or "ballistic" missiles?

Neither. Laser-guided missiles or rockets.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 17:59:43 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by charles
both can be air-launched. The drone carries missiles.

Thank you for clarifying that the drone itself isn't the missile.
I thought the drone was what "landed" on terrorists' heads.
Do drones fire "cruise" missiles or "ballistic" missiles?

Not "cruise missiles".

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
Because there's no distinction that needs making.

Both a drone and a cruise missile are launched from the ground, fly
aerodynamically through the atmosphere, are guided by some mechanism to a
target, and then they blow up on the target.

That's a similarity, not a distinction.

There are no ballistic drones, so there is no need to refer to "cruise
drones".

-- Richard

[Whiskers]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
Because there's no distinction that needs making.

Both a drone and a cruise missile are launched from the ground, fly
aerodynamically through the atmosphere, are guided by some mechanism
to a target, and then they blow up on the target.

That's a similarity, not a distinction.
There are no ballistic drones, so there is no need to refer to "cruise
drones".
-- Richard

Are there any 'suicide' or 'kamikaze' drones? The difference between a
missile and a drone is that the former is designed to destroy itself
along with whatever it was aimed or steered at, whereas the latter goes
somewhere and comes back intact. A drone might carry a firearm or
missile, and so kill people, but is essentially much the same in use as
a piloted aircraft. The operator of a drone might hesitate less to let
the drone be destroyed than a pilot sitting in the aircraft would, I
suppose.

[musika]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
Because there's no distinction that needs making.

Both a drone and a cruise missile are launched from the ground,
fly aerodynamically through the atmosphere, are guided by some
mechanism to a target, and then they blow up on the target.

That's a similarity, not a distinction.
There are no ballistic drones, so there is no need to refer to
"cruise drones".
-- Richard

Are there any 'suicide' or 'kamikaze' drones?

Yes. The drone-bombs as used by ISIS/ISIL/Da'esh.

Post by Whiskers
The difference between a
missile and a drone is that the former is designed to destroy itself
along with whatever it was aimed or steered at, whereas the latter
goes somewhere and comes back intact. A drone might carry a firearm
or missile, and so kill people, but is essentially much the same in
use as a piloted aircraft. The operator of a drone might hesitate
less to let the drone be destroyed than a pilot sitting in the
aircraft would, I suppose.

[Whiskers]

Post by musika

Post by Whiskers

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
Because there's no distinction that needs making.

Both a drone and a cruise missile are launched from the ground,
fly aerodynamically through the atmosphere, are guided by some
mechanism to a target, and then they blow up on the target.

That's a similarity, not a distinction.
There are no ballistic drones, so there is no need to refer to
"cruise drones".
-- Richard

Are there any 'suicide' or 'kamikaze' drones?

Yes. The drone-bombs as used by ISIS/ISIL/Da'esh.

[...]

Then we need a specific designation for them.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Whiskers

Post by musika

Post by Whiskers

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
Because there's no distinction that needs making.

Both a drone and a cruise missile are launched from the ground,
fly aerodynamically through the atmosphere, are guided by some
mechanism to a target, and then they blow up on the target.

That's a similarity, not a distinction.
There are no ballistic drones, so there is no need to refer to
"cruise drones".
-- Richard

Are there any 'suicide' or 'kamikaze' drones?

Yes. The drone-bombs as used by ISIS/ISIL/Da'esh.

[...]
Then we need a specific designation for them.

They are not designed specifically for "bombing". They are ordinary
commercially available helicopter-style drones that are used by ISIS/etc
to deliver "parcels" that explode.
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/01/drones-isis/134542/

ISIS dispatches several kinds of drones easily acquired online, but
“primarily uses quadcopters,” CENTCOM said, “for surveillance and to
drop explosives on friendly forces.”

"friendly forces" are presumably friendly from the point of view of
CENTCOM, not ISIS.

[Whiskers]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Whiskers

Post by musika

Post by Whiskers

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
Because there's no distinction that needs making.

Both a drone and a cruise missile are launched from the ground,
fly aerodynamically through the atmosphere, are guided by some
mechanism to a target, and then they blow up on the target.

That's a similarity, not a distinction.
There are no ballistic drones, so there is no need to refer to
"cruise drones".
-- Richard

Are there any 'suicide' or 'kamikaze' drones?

Yes. The drone-bombs as used by ISIS/ISIL/Da'esh.

[...]
Then we need a specific designation for them.

They are not designed specifically for "bombing". They are ordinary
commercially available helicopter-style drones that are used by ISIS/etc
to deliver "parcels" that explode.
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/01/drones-isis/134542/
ISIS dispatches several kinds of drones easily acquired online, but
“primarily uses quadcopters,” CENTCOM said, “for surveillance and to
drop explosives on friendly forces.”
"friendly forces" are presumably friendly from the point of view of
CENTCOM, not ISIS.

A drone that drops a bomb and goes home, or tries to, is a bomber drone.
A drone that takes photos is a reconnaissance drone. A drone that is
deliberately flown into something and exploded is something else.

There are many pictures on line of captured improvised bomber drones,
which suggests that not all of them actually get home again - but also
suggests that the people making them find it worthwhile to at least try
to get them home again for re-use, rather than make them single-use
disposable items like missiles.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Whiskers
A drone that drops a bomb and goes home, or tries to, is a bomber drone.
A drone that takes photos is a reconnaissance drone. A drone that is
deliberately flown into something and exploded is something else.

An inexplicable waste of money.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers
A drone that drops a bomb and goes home, or tries to, is a bomber drone.
A drone that takes photos is a reconnaissance drone. A drone that is
deliberately flown into something and exploded is something else.

An inexplicable waste of money.

Those 59 cruise missiles cost around $84 million. I don't know if
Battle Damage Assessment includes an accountancy function.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers
A drone that drops a bomb and goes home, or tries to, is a bomber drone.
A drone that takes photos is a reconnaissance drone. A drone that is
deliberately flown into something and exploded is something else.

An inexplicable waste of money.

Those 59 cruise missiles cost around $84 million. I don't know if
Battle Damage Assessment includes an accountancy function.
--
Sam Plusnet

Did anybody fail to mention Tom for a good reason?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:45:41 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers
A drone that drops a bomb and goes home, or tries to, is a bomber drone.
A drone that takes photos is a reconnaissance drone. A drone that is
deliberately flown into something and exploded is something else.

An inexplicable waste of money.

Raytheon, the maker of those cruise missiles might disagree.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-it-will-cost-to-replace-the-tomahawks-used-in-syria-2017-04-07

Demand for Tomahawks never seems to go down, said Tom Karako, a
director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Karako estimated a replacement cost for each Tomahawk of around $1
million.

The Navy’s 2017 budget has the future missiles at a unit cost of
$1.5 million, higher than previous years, but that is probably
because the Navy is winding down the program and does not plan, at
least for now, on buying more Tomahawks after this year, said Todd
Harrison, also a director with CSIS.

Perhaps the firing of those missiles was all part of Trump's plan to
provide more jobs for American workers.

I wonder what weapons he will use in the upcoming North Korean fracas?

[Dr. HotSalt]

Post by Whiskers

Post by musika

Post by Whiskers

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
Because there's no distinction that needs making.

Both a drone and a cruise missile are launched from the ground,
fly aerodynamically through the atmosphere, are guided by some
mechanism to a target, and then they blow up on the target.

That's a similarity, not a distinction.
There are no ballistic drones, so there is no need to refer to
"cruise drones".
-- Richard

Are there any 'suicide' or 'kamikaze' drones?

Yes. The drone-bombs as used by ISIS/ISIL/Da'esh.

[...]
Then we need a specific designation for them.

No, "we" don't.

As is constantly mentioned here, meaning is decided by usage, not dictionary definition. The people who actually use such things, namely the militaries who launch and/or have to figure out how to defend against them, name and classify them according to their capabilities and intended purposes.

Cruise missiles have been defined my militaries worldwide as self-guided jet-propelled weapons which can be launched from any number of platforms (including but not limited to ground facilities, aircraft, and submarines), and then proceed to fly at a more or less constant speed ("cruise", as in "cruise control") at pre-programmed or variable altitude/s along either a predetermined or variable course to a target. It may use an inertial navigation system (using internal gyroscopes and accelerometers) or sensors to determine its position with reference to an internal map, or a combination of those. It may or may not be capable of detecting and avoiding or even countering external threats like ground-defense or aircraft missile-targeting radar.

There's no need to provide separate definitions for them when they use internal or external means to determine their course or altitude. That depends on the mission and conditions at the time.

They are almost never under any sort of external control while in flight except for the "oops, we shouldn't have launched that one" or "it's not going where we wanted it to" self-destruct commands issued by its launcher if and when something in its guidance goes wrong or battle conditions change after launch.

Drones may also be capable of flying a pre-programmed route, or be remotely piloted, or both, but generally aren't intended to conclude their mission by directly striking a target, as opposed to deploying a weapon they were carrying, although they may in extremis be used for that purpose if nothing else is available.

Such different classes of weapons systems generally get their names so that various governments can debate over whether it's "fair" to use them under various conditions or if their use constitutes a war crime.

The fact that ISIS and other poorly-equipped militaries feel free to use remotely-piloted quadcopters as multi-role vehicles shouldn't surprise anyone. If they want to duct-tape a camera to one to use it for reconnaissance and can figure out how to supply it enough brains to fly without external control, then they will, and if they want to bomb something and have nothing else to use they will duct-tape a bomb to it instead and fly it by remote control, despite what anyone else might think the device should be called.

Groups like ISIS, who don't participate in international treaty processes, generally don't care if they're committing what someone else would call a "war crime", hence don't bother with others' definitions for the tools they use.


Dr. HotSalt

[Alexandre Janssens]

Post by Richard Tobin
There are no ballistic drones, so there is no need to refer to "cruise
drones".

Thank you for that clarification which informs me of a distinction which is
needed for missiles that isn't needed for drones.

Charles, before you, clarified that drones aren't the missile themselves -
they launch a missile.

So that then brings up the question of whether the missile launched by the
drone is a cruise missile or a ballistic missile.

Searching - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator
this drone fires "AGM-114 Hellfire missiles".

Looking up what the hellfire is, it's an air2surface missile of some sort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

It's laser guided, so that makes it sort of a cruise missile in that it
cruises along a straight path, as opposed to a ballistic trajectory.

[charles]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
There are no ballistic drones, so there is no need to refer to "cruise
drones".

Thank you for that clarification which informs me of a distinction which is
needed for missiles that isn't needed for drones.
Charles, before you, clarified that drones aren't the missile themselves -
they launch a missile.
So that then brings up the question of whether the missile launched by the
drone is a cruise missile or a ballistic missile.
Searching - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator
this drone fires "AGM-114 Hellfire missiles".
Looking up what the hellfire is, it's an air2surface missile of some sort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire
It's laser guided, so that makes it sort of a cruise missile in that it
cruises along a straight path, as opposed to a ballistic trajectory.

It will go in a straight line air to ground, so it isn't ballistic, but I
doubt if you could consider its speed "cruising".

[ErrolC]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
There are no ballistic drones, so there is no need to refer to "cruise
drones".

Thank you for that clarification which informs me of a distinction which is
needed for missiles that isn't needed for drones.
Charles, before you, clarified that drones aren't the missile themselves -
they launch a missile.
So that then brings up the question of whether the missile launched by the
drone is a cruise missile or a ballistic missile.
Searching - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator
this drone fires "AGM-114 Hellfire missiles".
Looking up what the hellfire is, it's an air2surface missile of some sort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire
It's laser guided, so that makes it sort of a cruise missile in that it
cruises along a straight path, as opposed to a ballistic trajectory.

Hellfires are one of a class of weapons called Anti-Tank Guided Missiles
(ATGM), which existed before cruise missiles were named as such.
They are often used against targets other than tanks. ATGMs are NOT
cruise missiles. While they may travel at somewhat similar speeds,
they do so without (significant) benefit of aerodynamic lift from wings
and for distances of only a few km.
Laser-guided weapons generally have limited ability to attack moving
targets, and ATGMs are specifically designed to hit armoured vehicles
while they move. So their flight path is often curved.
A guided rocket-assisted bomb with wings fitted (to extend its range)
could appear to meet the formal definition of a cruise missile, but
aren't referred to as such.

--
Errol Cavit

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
Because there's no distinction that needs making.

Both a drone and a cruise missile are launched from the ground, fly
aerodynamically through the atmosphere, are guided by some mechanism to a
target, and then they blow up on the target.

False.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Richard Tobin
Because there's no distinction that needs making.

Both a drone and a cruise missile are launched from the ground, fly
aerodynamically through the atmosphere, are guided by some mechanism to a
target, and then they blow up on the target.

False.

The cruise missile has its target pre-programmed into its guidance
system and travels 'directly' to the target[1].

A drone is controlled by a human and may search an area, or loiter over
an area of interest, as directed by that controller.

Two quite different beasts.

[1] There may be some twists and turns en route, but these are all
pre-programmed. Correspondents in Baghdad at the start of the Gulf War
(Number 2?) reported on cruise missiles doing right-angle turns at major
street junctions.

[Alexandre Janssens]

Post by Sam Plusnet
A drone is controlled by a human and may search an area, or loiter over
an area of interest, as directed by that controller.

Why is a drone called a drone?

I guess, off hand, that it makes a "droning sound" as it flies about.

drone
dròn/
verb
1.
make a continuous low humming sound.
"in the far distance a machine droned"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibrate, murmur, rumble, purr
"a plane droned overhead"
noun
1.
a low continuous humming sound.
"he nodded off to the drone of the car engine"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibration, murmur, purr
"the drone of aircraft taking off"
2.
a male bee in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can fertilize
a queen.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Sam Plusnet
A drone is controlled by a human and may search an area, or loiter over
an area of interest, as directed by that controller.

Why is a drone called a drone?
I guess, off hand, that it makes a "droning sound" as it flies about.
drone
drņn/
verb
1.
make a continuous low humming sound.
"in the far distance a machine droned"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibrate, murmur, rumble, purr
"a plane droned overhead"
noun
1.
a low continuous humming sound.
"he nodded off to the drone of the car engine"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibration, murmur, purr
"the drone of aircraft taking off"
2.
a male bee in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can fertilize
a queen.

Dictionaries agree that the "pilotless plane" meaning comes from
the "male bee" meaning, but none of them explains the connection.
(I looked at American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com,
Oxford, and etymonline.com. The Cambridge dictionary doesn't say
what sense of "drone" the "pilotless" sense is connected to.)

Maybe somehow "doesn't work" suggested "doesn't carry a pilot"?

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Sam Plusnet
A drone is controlled by a human and may search an area, or loiter over
an area of interest, as directed by that controller.

Why is a drone called a drone?
I guess, off hand, that it makes a "droning sound" as it flies about.
drone
drņn/
verb
1.
make a continuous low humming sound.
"in the far distance a machine droned"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibrate, murmur, rumble, purr
"a plane droned overhead"
noun
1.
a low continuous humming sound.
"he nodded off to the drone of the car engine"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibration, murmur, purr
"the drone of aircraft taking off"
2.
a male bee in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can fertilize
a queen.

Dictionaries agree that the "pilotless plane" meaning comes from
the "male bee" meaning, but none of them explains the connection.
(I looked at American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com,
Oxford, and etymonline.com. The Cambridge dictionary doesn't say
what sense of "drone" the "pilotless" sense is connected to.)
Maybe somehow "doesn't work" suggested "doesn't carry a pilot"?

I don't know how far back it goes ... presumably not earlier than 1906.

But the WWII use of "drone" was primarily for planes that were for
target practice. No pilot to avoid injury to pilots.
There were small drones like model airplane flyers would have,
some drones from cheaper trainers,
and some combat craft that were captured or taken off the flight line.

I suspect that during WWI that balloons, kites, and gliders were used
for target practice. Planes were too hard to build and too hard to control
to have been thrown away when not at the front.
Radio control would have been developed
during the '20s and '30s.

I don't have my _National Geographic_ archives handy,
but their photogs were allowed to take pictures of drones
and even of gun crews shooting at them.

/dps

[Mark Brader]

Post by s***@gmail.com
But the WWII use of "drone" was primarily for planes that were for
target practice. No pilot to avoid injury to pilots...
I suspect that during WWI that balloons, kites, and gliders were used
for target practice.

A third approach would be for a cloth target to be towed behind a
plane. I saw this depicted in a 1940 movie that I saw recently,
which was produced in cooperation with the US Navy, so presumably
that's what US naval aviators actually did at that time. As to
other air forces or other times, though, I have no idea.

[Snidely]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by s***@gmail.com
But the WWII use of "drone" was primarily for planes that were for
target practice. No pilot to avoid injury to pilots...
I suspect that during WWI that balloons, kites, and gliders were used
for target practice.

A third approach would be for a cloth target to be towed behind a
plane. I saw this depicted in a 1940 movie that I saw recently,
which was produced in cooperation with the US Navy, so presumably
that's what US naval aviators actually did at that time. As to
other air forces or other times, though, I have no idea.

Now that you mention it, ISTR seeing that covered in either NatGee or
reruns of newsreels.

/dps

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Sam Plusnet
A drone is controlled by a human and may search an area, or loiter over
an area of interest, as directed by that controller.

Why is a drone called a drone?
I guess, off hand, that it makes a "droning sound" as it flies about.
drone
dr?n/
verb
1.
make a continuous low humming sound.
"in the far distance a machine droned"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibrate, murmur, rumble, purr
"a plane droned overhead"
noun
1.
a low continuous humming sound.
"he nodded off to the drone of the car engine"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibration, murmur, purr
"the drone of aircraft taking off"
2.
a male bee in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can
a fertilize queen.

Dictionaries agree that the "pilotless plane" meaning comes from
the "male bee" meaning, but none of them explains the connection.
(I looked at American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com,
Oxford, and etymonline.com. The Cambridge dictionary doesn't say
what sense of "drone" the "pilotless" sense is connected to.)
Maybe somehow "doesn't work" suggested "doesn't carry a pilot"?

I don't know how far back it goes ... presumably not earlier than 1906.
But the WWII use of "drone" was primarily for planes that were for
target practice. No pilot to avoid injury to pilots.
There were small drones like model airplane flyers would have,
some drones from cheaper trainers,
and some combat craft that were captured or taken off the flight line.
I suspect that during WWI that balloons, kites, and gliders were used
for target practice. Planes were too hard to build and too hard to control
to have been thrown away when not at the front.
Radio control would have been developed
during the '20s and '30s.

AFAIK they didn't do much anti-aircraft gunnery practice during WWI
They just banged away at the real thing,
whenever one came by,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Sam Plusnet
A drone is controlled by a human and may search an area, or loiter over
an area of interest, as directed by that controller.

Why is a drone called a drone?
I guess, off hand, that it makes a "droning sound" as it flies about.
drone
dr?n/
verb
1.
make a continuous low humming sound.
"in the far distance a machine droned"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibrate, murmur, rumble, purr
"a plane droned overhead"
noun
1.
a low continuous humming sound.
"he nodded off to the drone of the car engine"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibration, murmur, purr
"the drone of aircraft taking off"
2.
a male bee in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can
a fertilize queen.

Dictionaries agree that the "pilotless plane" meaning comes from
the "male bee" meaning, but none of them explains the connection.
(I looked at American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com,
Oxford, and etymonline.com. The Cambridge dictionary doesn't say
what sense of "drone" the "pilotless" sense is connected to.)
Maybe somehow "doesn't work" suggested "doesn't carry a pilot"?

I don't know how far back it goes ... presumably not earlier than 1906.
But the WWII use of "drone" was primarily for planes that were for
target practice. No pilot to avoid injury to pilots.
There were small drones like model airplane flyers would have,
some drones from cheaper trainers,
and some combat craft that were captured or taken off the flight line.

Attempts were made in WWII to use big planes as drones.
In particular Joe Kennedy Jr (JFK's elder brother)
was killed in an attempt to crash a remotely piloted bomber
on a German U-Boot base.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy_Jr.>

Kennedy and copilot were intended to parachute out
after taking off and setting the plane on course.
The B24 Liberator exploded while they were still on board.

The wikippage uses 'drone' freely,
but this may be an anachronism.
The contemporary telegram cited uses 'robot',

Jan

[Snidely]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Kennedy and copilot were intended to parachute out
after taking off and setting the plane on course.
The B24 Liberator exploded while they were still on board.

B-24's seem to have earned a reputation as being fragile-under-fire
compared to B-17s. The extra bomb capacity from the newer engines kept
them in production, though.

However, I'm not sure how they stacked up on the question of
not-getting-to-where-the-fire-was.

/dps

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:59:57 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Sam Plusnet
A drone is controlled by a human and may search an area, or loiter over
an area of interest, as directed by that controller.

Why is a drone called a drone?
I guess, off hand, that it makes a "droning sound" as it flies about.
drone
dr?n/
verb
1.
make a continuous low humming sound.
"in the far distance a machine droned"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibrate, murmur, rumble, purr
"a plane droned overhead"
noun
1.
a low continuous humming sound.
"he nodded off to the drone of the car engine"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibration, murmur, purr
"the drone of aircraft taking off"
2.
a male bee in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can fertilize
a queen.

Dictionaries agree that the "pilotless plane" meaning comes from
the "male bee" meaning, but none of them explains the connection.
(I looked at American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com,
Oxford, and etymonline.com. The Cambridge dictionary doesn't say
what sense of "drone" the "pilotless" sense is connected to.)
Maybe somehow "doesn't work" suggested "doesn't carry a pilot"?

I wonder whether there was a misunderstanding of the meaning of "drone"
as a type of bee?

Most people have no special knowledge of bees but many know the phrases
"queen bee", "worker bees" and "drones". It would be no suprise if many
people think that "drone" is just another word for "worker bee" and
that, in some way, the worker bees (drones) are controlled by the queen
bee. So the idea of a drone being something controlled by something else
could come from that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_drone

A target drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle, generally remote
controlled, usually used in the training of anti-aircraft crews.

One of the earliest drones was the British DH.82 Queen Bee, a
variant of the Tiger Moth trainer aircraft operational from 1935.
Its name led to the present term "drone".[citation needed]

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/484/The-Mother-of-All-Drones.aspx

The Queen Bee was certainly the first truly successful pilotless
aircraft with nearly 400 being manufactured over several years. The
Queen Bee’s ability to fly without a pilot was indeed high
technology at the time and it was demonstrated for dignitaries on
many occasions. In 1936, Admiral William Harrison Standley, the US
Navy’s representative at the London Naval Conference, was witness to
a demonstration of the Queen Bee during a live-firing exercise. Upon
his return to the United States, he set in motion revitalized
American research into remotely flown aircraft like the Queen Bee,
which could be used as a training device in the same manner.

Shortly thereafter, the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) tasked
Lieutenant Commander Delmar Fahrney to lead a project to develop the
system. Within months, two Curtiss N2C-2 Fledgling and two Stearman
training biplanes were equipped with similar equipment to the Queen
-> Bee. Soon, the word “drone” began appearing in documents related to
-> the American project. According to accounts, Fahrney himself coined
-> the term drone as a deliberate nod to the de Havilland Queen Bee.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:06:09 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:59:57 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Sam Plusnet
A drone is controlled by a human and may search an area, or loiter over
an area of interest, as directed by that controller.

Why is a drone called a drone?
I guess, off hand, that it makes a "droning sound" as it flies about.
drone
dr?n/
verb
1.
make a continuous low humming sound.
"in the far distance a machine droned"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibrate, murmur, rumble, purr
"a plane droned overhead"
noun
1.
a low continuous humming sound.
"he nodded off to the drone of the car engine"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibration, murmur, purr
"the drone of aircraft taking off"
2.
a male bee in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can fertilize
a queen.

Dictionaries agree that the "pilotless plane" meaning comes from
the "male bee" meaning, but none of them explains the connection.
(I looked at American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com,
Oxford, and etymonline.com. The Cambridge dictionary doesn't say
what sense of "drone" the "pilotless" sense is connected to.)
Maybe somehow "doesn't work" suggested "doesn't carry a pilot"?

I wonder whether there was a misunderstanding of the meaning of "drone"
as a type of bee?
Most people have no special knowledge of bees but many know the phrases
"queen bee", "worker bees" and "drones". It would be no suprise if many
people think that "drone" is just another word for "worker bee" and
that, in some way, the worker bees (drones) are controlled by the queen
bee. So the idea of a drone being something controlled by something else
could come from that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_drone
A target drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle, generally remote
controlled, usually used in the training of anti-aircraft crews.
One of the earliest drones was the British DH.82 Queen Bee, a
variant of the Tiger Moth trainer aircraft operational from 1935.
Its name led to the present term "drone".[citation needed]
http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/484/The-Mother-of-All-Drones.aspx
The Queen Bee was certainly the first truly successful pilotless
aircraft with nearly 400 being manufactured over several years. The
Queen Bee’s ability to fly without a pilot was indeed high
technology at the time and it was demonstrated for dignitaries on
many occasions. In 1936, Admiral William Harrison Standley, the US
Navy’s representative at the London Naval Conference, was witness to
a demonstration of the Queen Bee during a live-firing exercise. Upon
his return to the United States, he set in motion revitalized
American research into remotely flown aircraft like the Queen Bee,
which could be used as a training device in the same manner.
Shortly thereafter, the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) tasked
Lieutenant Commander Delmar Fahrney to lead a project to develop the
system. Within months, two Curtiss N2C-2 Fledgling and two Stearman
training biplanes were equipped with similar equipment to the Queen
-> Bee. Soon, the word “drone” began appearing in documents related to
-> the American project. According to accounts, Fahrney himself coined
-> the term drone as a deliberate nod to the de Havilland Queen Bee.

The next paragraph starts:

It is not known for sure if the drone naming is fact, but it is
likely. Certainly, it is an appropriate name, conjuring armies of
identical, mindless animals whose sole purpose is to do the bidding
of a Queen Bee mother.

[CDB]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Reading

Post by Sam Plusnet
A drone is controlled by a human and may search an area, or
loiter over an area of interest, as directed by that
controller.

Why is a drone called a drone?
I guess, off hand, that it makes a "droning sound" as it flies about.
drone dr?n/ verb 1. make a continuous low humming sound. "in
the far distance a machine droned" synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr,
vibrate, murmur, rumble, purr "a plane droned overhead" noun
1. a low continuous humming sound. "he nodded off to the drone
of the car engine" synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibration,
murmur, purr "the drone of aircraft taking off" 2. a male bee
in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can
fertilize a queen.

Dictionaries agree that the "pilotless plane" meaning comes from
the "male bee" meaning, but none of them explains the
connection. (I looked at American Heritage, Merriam-Webster,
dictionary.com, Oxford, and etymonline.com. The Cambridge
dictionary doesn't say what sense of "drone" the "pilotless"
sense is connected to.)
Maybe somehow "doesn't work" suggested "doesn't carry a pilot"?

I wonder whether there was a misunderstanding of the meaning of
"drone" as a type of bee?
Most people have no special knowledge of bees but many know the
phrases "queen bee", "worker bees" and "drones". It would be no
suprise if many people think that "drone" is just another word for
"worker bee" and that, in some way, the worker bees (drones) are
controlled by the queen bee. So the idea of a drone being something
controlled by something else could come from that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_drone
A target drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle, generally remote
controlled, usually used in the training of anti-aircraft crews.
One of the earliest drones was the British DH.82 Queen Bee, a
variant of the Tiger Moth trainer aircraft operational from 1935.
Its name led to the present term "drone".[citation needed]
http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/484/The-Mother-of-All-Drones.aspx

The Queen Bee was certainly the first truly successful pilotless

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
aircraft with nearly 400 being manufactured over several years.
The Queen Bee’s ability to fly without a pilot was indeed high
technology at the time and it was demonstrated for dignitaries on
many occasions. In 1936, Admiral William Harrison Standley, the US
Navy’s representative at the London Naval Conference, was witness
to a demonstration of the Queen Bee during a live-firing exercise.
Upon his return to the United States, he set in motion revitalized
American research into remotely flown aircraft like the Queen Bee,
which could be used as a training device in the same manner.
Shortly thereafter, the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer)
tasked Lieutenant Commander Delmar Fahrney to lead a project to
develop the system. Within months, two Curtiss N2C-2 Fledgling and
two Stearman training biplanes were equipped with similar equipment
to the Queen -> Bee. Soon, the word “drone” began appearing in
documents related to -> the American project. According to
accounts, Fahrney himself coined -> the term drone as a deliberate
nod to the de Havilland Queen Bee.

It is not known for sure if the drone naming is fact, but it is
likely. Certainly, it is an appropriate name, conjuring armies of
identical, mindless animals whose sole purpose is to do the bidding
of a Queen Bee mother.

Pursuing the idea of the target plane a bit further: the other thing
people may know about drones (male social bees) is that they have one
transcendent moment up in the sky and then fall dead to earth.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:06:09 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:59:57 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Sam Plusnet
A drone is controlled by a human and may search an area, or loiter over
an area of interest, as directed by that controller.

Why is a drone called a drone?
I guess, off hand, that it makes a "droning sound" as it flies about.
drone
dr?n/
verb
1.
make a continuous low humming sound.
"in the far distance a machine droned"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibrate, murmur, rumble, purr
"a plane droned overhead"
noun
1.
a low continuous humming sound.
"he nodded off to the drone of the car engine"
synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibration, murmur, purr
"the drone of aircraft taking off"
2.
a male bee in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can fertilize
a queen.

Dictionaries agree that the "pilotless plane" meaning comes from
the "male bee" meaning, but none of them explains the connection.
(I looked at American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com,
Oxford, and etymonline.com. The Cambridge dictionary doesn't say
what sense of "drone" the "pilotless" sense is connected to.)
Maybe somehow "doesn't work" suggested "doesn't carry a pilot"?

I wonder whether there was a misunderstanding of the meaning of "drone"
as a type of bee?
Most people have no special knowledge of bees but many know the phrases
"queen bee", "worker bees" and "drones". It would be no suprise if many
people think that "drone" is just another word for "worker bee" and
that, in some way, the worker bees (drones) are controlled by the queen
bee. So the idea of a drone being something controlled by something else
could come from that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_drone
A target drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle, generally remote
controlled, usually used in the training of anti-aircraft crews.
One of the earliest drones was the British DH.82 Queen Bee, a
variant of the Tiger Moth trainer aircraft operational from 1935.
Its name led to the present term "drone".[citation needed]
http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/484/The-Mother-of-All-Drones.aspx
The Queen Bee was certainly the first truly successful pilotless
aircraft with nearly 400 being manufactured over several years. The
Queen Bee’s ability to fly without a pilot was indeed high
technology at the time and it was demonstrated for dignitaries on
many occasions. In 1936, Admiral William Harrison Standley, the US
Navy’s representative at the London Naval Conference, was witness to
a demonstration of the Queen Bee during a live-firing exercise. Upon
his return to the United States, he set in motion revitalized
American research into remotely flown aircraft like the Queen Bee,
which could be used as a training device in the same manner.
Shortly thereafter, the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) tasked
Lieutenant Commander Delmar Fahrney to lead a project to develop the
system. Within months, two Curtiss N2C-2 Fledgling and two Stearman
training biplanes were equipped with similar equipment to the Queen
-> Bee. Soon, the word “drone” began appearing in documents related to
-> the American project. According to accounts, Fahrney himself coined
-> the term drone as a deliberate nod to the de Havilland Queen Bee.

It is not known for sure if the drone naming is fact, but it is
likely. Certainly, it is an appropriate name, conjuring armies of
identical, mindless animals whose sole purpose is to do the bidding
of a Queen Bee mother.

Thanks, that sounds very reasonable.

[Whiskers]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Horace LaBadie
Drones are meant to remain aloft for long times, and then return.
They are designed to be pilotless aircraft. Cruise missiles are
single-use.

While it's appreciated that there is a difference between a drone and
a cruise missile, none of that explains why the single-use missile is
called a "cruise" missile, and why a drone isn't called a cruise
drone.

Don't expect logic or consistency in the naming of things.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:55:44 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The point about a cruise missile is that it "cruises" to its target at
a steady speed.

A 'cruise missile' isn't necessarily 'guided'; the WWII V1 and V2
weren't, they were just launched in the desired direction and programmed
(or given enough fuel) to fall out of the sky at the desired distance.
I'm not sure that a 'cruise' missile has to manage 'aerodynamic flight',
but that's certainly the most likely way of sustaining a steady speed in
level or controlled flight through atmosphere.
A 'guided' missile doesn't have to 'cruise'.
A missile doesn't have to be guided or aimed, merely launched. The WWII
V1 and V2 were not guided, and they were only 'aimed' in the loosest
sense of the word.

I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come close to
a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use with that puny
thousand pound payload.
But I agree with you that the word "cruise" doesn't seem to have any
relationship to the fact that the cruise missile needs to also be a guided
missile.
I'm guessing from the responses that the "cruise" part of the missile is a
combination of the fact it
1. Flies aerodynamically so it can go a long distance "cruising" around
2. Flies straight and low so it "cruises" around non ballistically
I'm not sure how that differs from a drone, which must cruise around non
ballistically also.
Maybe the fact that drones are guided differently defines the difference
between a drone missile and a cruise missile. Plus drones probably don't go
all that far from home.

The general position is that a cruise missile is self-navigating, and a
drone is navigated by a pilot on the ground.

In the military context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_combat_aerial_vehicle

An unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), also known as a combat
drone or simply a drone, is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that
usually carries aircraft ordnance such as missiles. Aircraft of this
type have no onboard human pilot. These drones are usually under
real-time human control, with varying levels of autonomy.

I'd describe a drone as a remote-controlled aircraft.

[Alexandre Janssens]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The general position is that a cruise missile is self-navigating, and a
drone is navigated by a pilot on the ground.

But then why does a cruise missile cruise, while a drone, apparently, does
not cruise?

The only difference I can think of that is related to the meaning of cruise
is that the cruise missile goes farther than does a drone.

That is, it cruises while the drone doesn't cruise.
I guess.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 02:58:48 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The general position is that a cruise missile is self-navigating, and a
drone is navigated by a pilot on the ground.

But then why does a cruise missile cruise, while a drone, apparently, does
not cruise?
The only difference I can think of that is related to the meaning of cruise
is that the cruise missile goes farther than does a drone.
That is, it cruises while the drone doesn't cruise.
I guess.

A "drone" is a remotely piloted aircraft.

The word "drone" is used by journalists and others as a general term for
civilian and military types of remote-controlled aircraft.

The official term for what is commomly called a "drone" is UAV (Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

Classification

UAVs typically fall into one of six functional categories (although
multi-role airframe platforms are becoming more prevalent):

Target and decoy – providing ground and aerial gunnery a target
that simulates an enemy aircraft or missile
Reconnaissance – providing battlefield intelligence
Combat – providing attack capability for high-risk missions (see
unmanned combat aerial vehicle)
Logistics – delivering cargo
Research and development – improve UAV technologies
Civil and commercial UAVs – agriculture, aerial photography,
data collection

UCAV (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_combat_aerial_vehicle

Examples of the use of UCAVs apart from firing missiles, etc.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_combat_aerial_vehicle#History

In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel used unarmed U.S. Ryan Firebee
target drones to spur Egypt into firing its entire arsenal of
anti-aircraft missiles. This mission was accomplished with no
injuries to Israeli pilots, who soon exploited the depleted Egyptian
defenses. In the late 1970s and 80s, Israel developed the Scout and
the Pioneer, which represented a shift toward the lighter,
glider-type model of UAV in use today. Israel pioneered the use of
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for real-time surveillance,
electronic warfare, and decoys. The images and radar
decoying provided by these UAVs helped Israel to completely
neutralize the Syrian air defenses in Operation Mole Cricket 19 at
the start of the 1982 Lebanon War, resulting in no pilots downed.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come close to
a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use with that puny
thousand pound payload.

Cruise missiles may or may not be guided. If so they require
sensing and steering apparatus that was invented only after
WW2, i.e. not available to the German V1 "flying bomb." This
was a cruise missile that could be aimed (pointed at the
enemy, and the range predetermined by the quantity of fuel)
but was not guided in flight.

The basic distinction is that ballistic missiles burn all their
fuel on the way up (to the peak of their ballistic trajectory,
at which point the fuel is exhausted, and gravity alone
accelerates their ballistic descent -- possibly at supersonic
speed, like the German V2 rocket. Cruise missiles motor
all the way to the target along a (more or less) horizontal
horizontal flight path.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come
close to a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use...

Cruise missiles may or may not be guided. If so they require
sensing and steering apparatus that was invented only after
WW2, i.e. not available to the German V1 "flying bomb." This
was a cruise missile that could be aimed (pointed at the
enemy, and the range predetermined by the quantity of fuel)
but was not guided in flight.

Yes -- and consequently, it *couldn't* hit a target smaller than an
entire city.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come
close to a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use...

Cruise missiles may or may not be guided. If so they require
sensing and steering apparatus that was invented only after
WW2, i.e. not available to the German V1 "flying bomb." This
was a cruise missile that could be aimed (pointed at the
enemy, and the range predetermined by the quantity of fuel)
but was not guided in flight.

Yes -- and consequently, it *couldn't* hit a target smaller than an
entire city.

Just like Bomber Command, and at a much lower cost.
The V1 was a very cost-effective weapon,
even more so when you add the cost of all countermeasures,

Jan

[Snidely]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come
close to a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use...

Cruise missiles may or may not be guided. If so they require
sensing and steering apparatus that was invented only after
WW2, i.e. not available to the German V1 "flying bomb." This
was a cruise missile that could be aimed (pointed at the
enemy, and the range predetermined by the quantity of fuel)
but was not guided in flight.

Yes -- and consequently, it *couldn't* hit a target smaller than an
entire city.

Just like Bomber Command, and at a much lower cost.
The V1 was a very cost-effective weapon,
even more so when you add the cost of all countermeasures,
Jan

I take it you're using "Bomber Command" to refer to German forces
(Luftwaffe) ....

/dps "should that be a '?' even though there's no question I so take
it?"

[Whiskers]

Post by Snidely

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come
close to a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use...

Cruise missiles may or may not be guided. If so they require
sensing and steering apparatus that was invented only after WW2,
i.e. not available to the German V1 "flying bomb." This was a
cruise missile that could be aimed (pointed at the enemy, and the
range predetermined by the quantity of fuel) but was not guided in
flight.

Yes -- and consequently, it *couldn't* hit a target smaller than an
entire city.

Just like Bomber Command, and at a much lower cost. The V1 was a
very cost-effective weapon, even more so when you add the cost of all
countermeasures,
Jan

I take it you're using "Bomber Command" to refer to German forces
(Luftwaffe) ....
/dps "should that be a '?' even though there's no question I so take
it?"

Allied bombing in WWII wasn't noted for its accuracy (despite official
claims). Both sides took measures to decrease the accuracy of the
other's bombing raids, on top of the inherent limitations of the
technology available.

[Marc Bissonnette]

Post by Whiskers
Allied bombing in WWII wasn't noted for its accuracy (despite official
claims). Both sides took measures to decrease the accuracy of the
other's bombing raids, on top of the inherent limitations of the
technology available.

OT
There has never been a war where strategic bombing has been anywhere near
accurate on the whole.

Lucky hits and saturating (aka carpet) bombing aside, air command "claims"
are so wildly exaggerated that nobody ever believes what the bomber command
report unless there is ancillary independent confirmation of results.

Even fire-storm bombing (ala Tokyo or Dresden) has limited results on the
intended target (e.g., morale or manufacturing).

While tactical bombing often also fails (witness Omaha beach on D Day,
where zero germans and zero guns were "obliterated" by one of the heaviest
bombings ever on European tactical targets), more often than not, tactical
bombing does work (e.g., close air support) - but ony because when tactical
bombing inevitably doesn't work the first time, there's an irate guy on the
ground who forces the aircraft to return to finish the task that they
missed.

I suspect the cruise missile attack on Syria was merely a "strategic
message". Certainly I don't believe the wild claims of 20% of the 450
Syrian MIGs destroyed; nor do I believe that the airfield itself was put
out of commission for long (even Henderson Field was repaired in a single
day after a massive bombardment by 18 inch (maybe even 19 inch) guns).

Besides, Russia claims only a small proportion of the cruise missiles
landed anywhere near the airfield (no word on where they would have
otherwise gone to) while the Americans cite only one misdirected missile.

These wildly divergent claims are typical of most bombing campaigns.

Classic is the aforementioned Omaha Beach example, where the soldiers on
the ground say the enemy was untouched while bomber command in the air
insists they were obliterated.

Whom would you tend to believe?

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:38:01 +0000 (UTC), Marc Bissonnette

Post by Marc Bissonnette

Post by Whiskers
Allied bombing in WWII wasn't noted for its accuracy (despite official
claims). Both sides took measures to decrease the accuracy of the
other's bombing raids, on top of the inherent limitations of the
technology available.

OT
There has never been a war where strategic bombing has been anywhere near
accurate on the whole.
Lucky hits and saturating (aka carpet) bombing aside, air command "claims"
are so wildly exaggerated that nobody ever believes what the bomber command
report unless there is ancillary independent confirmation of results.
Even fire-storm bombing (ala Tokyo or Dresden) has limited results on the
intended target (e.g., morale or manufacturing).
While tactical bombing often also fails (witness Omaha beach on D Day,
where zero germans and zero guns were "obliterated" by one of the heaviest
bombings ever on European tactical targets), more often than not, tactical
bombing does work (e.g., close air support) - but ony because when tactical
bombing inevitably doesn't work the first time, there's an irate guy on the
ground who forces the aircraft to return to finish the task that they
missed.
I suspect the cruise missile attack on Syria was merely a "strategic
message". Certainly I don't believe the wild claims of 20% of the 450
Syrian MIGs destroyed; nor do I believe that the airfield itself was put
out of commission for long (even Henderson Field was repaired in a single
day after a massive bombardment by 18 inch (maybe even 19 inch) guns).

In my view, the attack was an intended diversion of the US press from
the tribulations of the Trump administration. "Give them something
else to write about".

Post by Marc Bissonnette
Besides, Russia claims only a small proportion of the cruise missiles
landed anywhere near the airfield (no word on where they would have
otherwise gone to) while the Americans cite only one misdirected missile.
These wildly divergent claims are typical of most bombing campaigns.
Classic is the aforementioned Omaha Beach example, where the soldiers on
the ground say the enemy was untouched while bomber command in the air
insists they were obliterated.
Whom would you tend to believe?

[charles]

Post by Whiskers
Allied bombing in WWII wasn't noted for its accuracy (despite official
claims). Both sides took measures to decrease the accuracy of the
other's bombing raids, on top of the inherent limitations of the
technology available.

OT There has never been a war where strategic bombing has been anywhere
near accurate on the whole.
Lucky hits and saturating (aka carpet) bombing aside, air command
"claims" are so wildly exaggerated that nobody ever believes what the
bomber command report unless there is ancillary independent confirmation
of results.

Think of certain dams in Germany

[Snip]

(even Henderson Field was repaired in a single day after a massive
bombardment by 18 inch (maybe even 19 inch) guns).

75 years later planes need better runways.

[Snip]

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by charles

Post by Whiskers
Allied bombing in WWII wasn't noted for its accuracy (despite official
claims). Both sides took measures to decrease the accuracy of the
other's bombing raids, on top of the inherent limitations of the
technology available.

OT There has never been a war where strategic bombing has been anywhere
near accurate on the whole.
Lucky hits and saturating (aka carpet) bombing aside, air command
"claims" are so wildly exaggerated that nobody ever believes what the
bomber command report unless there is ancillary independent confirmation
of results.

Think of certain dams in Germany

A typical example of technology push. [1]
We can do it, therefore we must do it,
therefore it must be very useful to do it.

In reality the raids had little effect on German war production,

Jan

[1] The technology was originally invented
to sink German battleships at sea,
but there was a severe shortage of German cruisers to sink.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Marc Bissonnette
I suspect the cruise missile attack on Syria was merely a "strategic
message". Certainly I don't believe the wild claims of 20% of the 450
Syrian MIGs destroyed; nor do I believe that the airfield itself was put
out of commission for long (even Henderson Field was repaired in a single
day after a massive bombardment by 18 inch (maybe even 19 inch) guns).

Syria fairly quickly released photos of that airfield still in
operation. The US administration at first tried to suggest that that was
misleading propaganda. Subsequently, Trump said that the runways were
not a target.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Marc Bissonnette
I suspect the cruise missile attack on Syria was merely a "strategic
message". Certainly I don't believe the wild claims of 20% of the 450
Syrian MIGs destroyed; nor do I believe that the airfield itself was put
out of commission for long (even Henderson Field was repaired in a single
day after a massive bombardment by 18 inch (maybe even 19 inch) guns).

Syria fairly quickly released photos of that airfield still in
operation. The US administration at first tried to suggest that that was
misleading propaganda. Subsequently, Trump said that the runways were
not a target.

Good job we can all safely assume that neither the Syrian government or
the Trump would talk through their hats*.

* That was the best that Synonym.com could come up with for "bullshit
(verb)".

[Janet]

In article <ocjuaj$k5e$***@dont-email.me>, ***@pmoylan.org.invalid
says...

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Marc Bissonnette
I suspect the cruise missile attack on Syria was merely a "strategic
message". Certainly I don't believe the wild claims of 20% of the 450
Syrian MIGs destroyed; nor do I believe that the airfield itself was put
out of commission for long (even Henderson Field was repaired in a single
day after a massive bombardment by 18 inch (maybe even 19 inch) guns).

Syria fairly quickly released photos of that airfield still in
operation.

Or maybe they just released pictures of another airfield in operation.

I'm reminded of Britain in WW2, setting up fake models on the ground
so that aerial photographs would mislead Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fortitude

Janet.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Snidely

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come
close to a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use...

Cruise missiles may or may not be guided. If so they require
sensing and steering apparatus that was invented only after WW2,
i.e. not available to the German V1 "flying bomb." This was a
cruise missile that could be aimed (pointed at the enemy, and the
range predetermined by the quantity of fuel) but was not guided in
flight.

Yes -- and consequently, it *couldn't* hit a target smaller than an
entire city.

Just like Bomber Command, and at a much lower cost. The V1 was a
very cost-effective weapon, even more so when you add the cost of all
countermeasures,
Jan

I take it you're using "Bomber Command" to refer to German forces
(Luftwaffe) ....
/dps "should that be a '?' even though there's no question I so take
it?"

Allied bombing in WWII wasn't noted for its accuracy (despite official
claims). Both sides took measures to decrease the accuracy of the
other's bombing raids, on top of the inherent limitations of the
technology available.

The USAF (flying in daylight) did somewhat better.
At least they could aim for military relevant targets.
(without decreasing German war production either)

The side effect of destroying the Luftwaffe almost completely
was very useful though,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Snidely

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come
close to a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use...

Cruise missiles may or may not be guided. If so they require
sensing and steering apparatus that was invented only after
WW2, i.e. not available to the German V1 "flying bomb." This
was a cruise missile that could be aimed (pointed at the
enemy, and the range predetermined by the quantity of fuel)
but was not guided in flight.

Yes -- and consequently, it *couldn't* hit a target smaller than an
entire city.

Just like Bomber Command, and at a much lower cost.
The V1 was a very cost-effective weapon,
even more so when you add the cost of all countermeasures,
Jan

I take it you're using "Bomber Command" to refer to German forces
(Luftwaffe) ....

Of course not. That's Arthur 'Bomber' Harris Bomber Command.
They went for carpet bmbing of civilians
because they were incapable of doing anything else,

Jan

[Janet]

In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, ***@de-
ster.demon.nl says...

Subject: Re: Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

Post by Snidely

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come
close to a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use...

Cruise missiles may or may not be guided. If so they require
sensing and steering apparatus that was invented only after
WW2, i.e. not available to the German V1 "flying bomb." This
was a cruise missile that could be aimed (pointed at the
enemy, and the range predetermined by the quantity of fuel)
but was not guided in flight.

Yes -- and consequently, it *couldn't* hit a target smaller than an
entire city.

Just like Bomber Command, and at a much lower cost.
The V1 was a very cost-effective weapon,
even more so when you add the cost of all countermeasures,
Jan

I take it you're using "Bomber Command" to refer to German forces
(Luftwaffe) ....

Of course not. That's Arthur 'Bomber' Harris Bomber Command.
They went for carpet bmbing of civilians
because they were incapable of doing anything else,

That's not true.

https://www.rafbf.org/bomber-command-memorial/about-bomber-command

"Other more specialised operations also took place. The famous 'Dam
Busters' raid of May 1943 shocked the world with its audacity, as Guy
Gibson?s 617 Squadron launched a daring raid on the dams surrounding the
Ruhr Valley.

Other attacks, like that on the battleship Tirpitz the following year,
eliminated the German navy?s last major surface ship. Raids in 1944 and
1945 against German 'V weapon' launch sites were also a crucial
defensive measure, helping to limit attacks from flying bombs and
rockets on British cities.

All these operations demonstrated the adaptability of Bomber Command
crews, taking on precision strikes with great effect."

Janet.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Snidely

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come
close to a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use...

Cruise missiles may or may not be guided. If so they require
sensing and steering apparatus that was invented only after
WW2, i.e. not available to the German V1 "flying bomb." This
was a cruise missile that could be aimed (pointed at the
enemy, and the range predetermined by the quantity of fuel)
but was not guided in flight.

Yes -- and consequently, it *couldn't* hit a target smaller than an
entire city.

Just like Bomber Command, and at a much lower cost.
The V1 was a very cost-effective weapon,
even more so when you add the cost of all countermeasures,
Jan

I take it you're using "Bomber Command" to refer to German forces
(Luftwaffe) ....

Of course not. That's Arthur 'Bomber' Harris Bomber Command.
They went for carpet bmbing of civilians
because they were incapable of doing anything else,

That's not true.
https://www.rafbf.org/bomber-command-memorial/about-bomber-command
"Other more specialised operations also took place. The famous 'Dam
Busters' raid of May 1943 shocked the world with its audacity, as Guy
Gibson?s 617 Squadron launched a daring raid on the dams surrounding the
Ruhr Valley.
Other attacks, like that on the battleship Tirpitz the following year,
eliminated the German navy?s last major surface ship. Raids in 1944 and
1945 against German 'V weapon' launch sites were also a crucial
defensive measure, helping to limit attacks from flying bombs and
rockets on British cities.
All these operations demonstrated the adaptability of Bomber Command
crews, taking on precision strikes with great effect."

It is a good propaganda page.
What it hides is that Harris was forced much against his will
to divert resources to these other purposes.

Harris thought Bomber Command could win the war by itself,
by forcing Germany to surrender through terror bombardment.
Harris himself said that he was engaged in 'morale bombardment'. [1]
In modern terms, he was a terrorist.

In particular Harris refused to commit resources to supporting D-Day,
which he regarded as superfluous,
since Bomber Command was going to win the war anyway.

Eisenhower had to treaten to resign as commander in chief
to force Bomber Command to support the invasion
by bombing militarily relevant targets in France.

Jan

See <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtml>
for example.
======
[1] Consequently, in February 1942, Bomber Command was instructed to
shift the focus onto the 'morale of the enemy civil population'. This
new policy came to be called 'area bombing'.
The aiming points thereafter, for bombing raids, were no longer military
or industrial installations, but a church or other significant spot in
the centre of industrial towns.
======
Whether or not that made Harris a war criminal
is a matter of dispute among historians.

[charles]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Snidely

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come
close to a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use...

Cruise missiles may or may not be guided. If so they require
sensing and steering apparatus that was invented only after
WW2, i.e. not available to the German V1 "flying bomb." This
was a cruise missile that could be aimed (pointed at the
enemy, and the range predetermined by the quantity of fuel)
but was not guided in flight.

Yes -- and consequently, it *couldn't* hit a target smaller than an
entire city.

Just like Bomber Command, and at a much lower cost.
The V1 was a very cost-effective weapon,
even more so when you add the cost of all countermeasures,
Jan

I take it you're using "Bomber Command" to refer to German forces
(Luftwaffe) ....

Of course not. That's Arthur 'Bomber' Harris Bomber Command.
They went for carpet bmbing of civilians
because they were incapable of doing anything else,

That's not true.
https://www.rafbf.org/bomber-command-memorial/about-bomber-command
"Other more specialised operations also took place. The famous 'Dam
Busters' raid of May 1943 shocked the world with its audacity, as Guy
Gibson?s 617 Squadron launched a daring raid on the dams surrounding the
Ruhr Valley.
Other attacks, like that on the battleship Tirpitz the following year,
eliminated the German navy?s last major surface ship. Raids in 1944 and
1945 against German 'V weapon' launch sites were also a crucial
defensive measure, helping to limit attacks from flying bombs and
rockets on British cities.
All these operations demonstrated the adaptability of Bomber Command
crews, taking on precision strikes with great effect."

It is a good propaganda page.
What it hides is that Harris was forced much against his will
to divert resources to these other purposes.
Harris thought Bomber Command could win the war by itself,
by forcing Germany to surrender through terror bombardment.
Harris himself said that he was engaged in 'morale bombardment'. [1]
In modern terms, he was a terrorist.
In particular Harris refused to commit resources to supporting D-Day,
which he regarded as superfluous,
since Bomber Command was going to win the war anyway.
Eisenhower had to treaten to resign as commander in chief
to force Bomber Command to support the invasion
by bombing militarily relevant targets in France.
Jan
See <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtml>
for example.
======
[1] Consequently, in February 1942, Bomber Command was instructed to
shift the focus onto the 'morale of the enemy civil population'. This
new policy came to be called 'area bombing'.
The aiming points thereafter, for bombing raids, were no longer military
or industrial installations, but a church or other significant spot in
the centre of industrial towns.
======
Whether or not that made Harris a war criminal
is a matter of dispute among historians.

consider Rotterdam

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by charles

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Snidely

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't
come close to a target smaller than an entire city to be of
any use...

Cruise missiles may or may not be guided. If so they require
sensing and steering apparatus that was invented only after
WW2, i.e. not available to the German V1 "flying bomb." This
was a cruise missile that could be aimed (pointed at the
enemy, and the range predetermined by the quantity of fuel)
but was not guided in flight.

Yes -- and consequently, it *couldn't* hit a target smaller than an
entire city.

Just like Bomber Command, and at a much lower cost.
The V1 was a very cost-effective weapon,
even more so when you add the cost of all countermeasures,
Jan

I take it you're using "Bomber Command" to refer to German forces
(Luftwaffe) ....

Of course not. That's Arthur 'Bomber' Harris Bomber Command.
They went for carpet bmbing of civilians
because they were incapable of doing anything else,

That's not true.
https://www.rafbf.org/bomber-command-memorial/about-bomber-command
"Other more specialised operations also took place. The famous 'Dam
Busters' raid of May 1943 shocked the world with its audacity, as Guy
Gibson?s 617 Squadron launched a daring raid on the dams surrounding the
Ruhr Valley.
Other attacks, like that on the battleship Tirpitz the following year,
eliminated the German navy?s last major surface ship. Raids in 1944 and
1945 against German 'V weapon' launch sites were also a crucial
defensive measure, helping to limit attacks from flying bombs and
rockets on British cities.
All these operations demonstrated the adaptability of Bomber Command
crews, taking on precision strikes with great effect."

It is a good propaganda page.
What it hides is that Harris was forced much against his will
to divert resources to these other purposes.
Harris thought Bomber Command could win the war by itself,
by forcing Germany to surrender through terror bombardment.
Harris himself said that he was engaged in 'morale bombardment'. [1]
In modern terms, he was a terrorist.
In particular Harris refused to commit resources to supporting D-Day,
which he regarded as superfluous,
since Bomber Command was going to win the war anyway.
Eisenhower had to treaten to resign as commander in chief
to force Bomber Command to support the invasion
by bombing militarily relevant targets in France.
Jan
See <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtml>
for example.
======
[1] Consequently, in February 1942, Bomber Command was instructed to
shift the focus onto the 'morale of the enemy civil population'. This
new policy came to be called 'area bombing'.
The aiming points thereafter, for bombing raids, were no longer military
or industrial installations, but a church or other significant spot in
the centre of industrial towns.
======
Whether or not that made Harris a war criminal
is a matter of dispute among historians.

consider Rotterdam

Considered.
Rotterdam was a different case altogether.
It was a defended city right in the front line.
It was Hitler's 'bridge too far'.
The Germans had taken the south bank,
and had a small foothold on the North bank,
but they had failed to take the bridges.
They bombed the area just to the north of the bridges
with the aim of breaking the defense.
(at less than a kilometer of their own troops)

There was a great urgency for them for doing so,
since they had also lost the battle for The Hague, [1]
and wanted desperately to rescue some of their
aircrews and paratroopers who had been taken prisoner.
(in vain, they had been shipped as POW to Britain the day before)

What made it a terrorist bombardment also
was the German threat to repeat at other Dutch cities,
where no fighting was going on.

Jan

[1] The battle for The Hague far the first air mobile operation ever.
The aim was to capture the city centre,
so the government, the general staff, and the queen,
in order to force a capitulation on the first day.
It was a disastrous failure.
Germany lost many of their highly trained aircrews,
paratroopers, and Junckers trimotor transports.
A side effect of the Dutch victory and the German losses
was that an invasion of England had become illusory,
whatever the outcome of the Battle of Britain.

History has been unkind to the defenders.
Their victory, and the importance of it was forgotten,
and rediscovered only fifty years later.

[Alexandre Janssens]

Post by Don Phillipson
Cruise missiles motor
all the way to the target along a (more or less) horizontal
horizontal flight path.

How does that differ from what a drone does on the way to the target?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 02:58:47 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Don Phillipson
Cruise missiles motor
all the way to the target along a (more or less) horizontal
horizontal flight path.

How does that differ from what a drone does on the way to the target?

The words "missile", "cruise" and "drone" are used rather loosely.

However, a missile is something that is sent and doesn't return. A drone
is a remotely-controlled aircraft that is intended to be brought back
and used again many times.

A "missile" was originally something that was thrown.

OED:

Etymology: As noun < classical Latin missile weapon for throwing...

A. n.

†1. In pl. Roman Hist. Gifts, such as sweets and perfumes, thrown by
Roman emperors to crowds as largesse. Obsolete.

2.
a. An object propelled (either by hand or mechanically) as a weapon
at a target.

1656 T. Blount Glossographia Missil (missile), a dart, stone,
arrow, or other thing thrown or shot.
1729 G. Shelvocke, Jr. tr. K. Siemienowicz Great Art Artillery v.
312 Under the head of Missiles, by which is meant Projectiles,
we will range Fire-Darts, Arrows and Javelins, Fire-Pots and
Flasks.
1794 T. Holcroft Adventures Hugh Trevor I. x. 144 The men seized
bellows, poker, tongs, and every other weapon or missile that was
at hand.
1829 Scott Lett. Demonol. x. 377 Surprisingly quick at throwing
stones, turf and other missiles.
....
1922 ‘R. Crompton’ Just—William vi. 129 She was totally
unprepared for being met by a shower of missiles from upper
windows. A lump of lard hit her on the ear.
1981 M. Leitch Silver's City xviii. 149 Then something struck
him, a stone; it fell at his feet, and in a moment, the air was
filled with missiles, curving high to land about him on the
roadway.

As can be seen in some of those quotations, the word missile is used for
anything thrown in a hostile way, not a specifically military weapon.

That entry continues:

b. Mil. A long-distance weapon that is self-propelled, and directed
either by remote control or automatically, during part or all of its
course.
Originally always with modifying word.

[Alexandre Janssens]

Post by Horace LaBadie
A drone
is a remotely-controlled aircraft that is intended to be brought back
and used again many times.

When they use drones to kill Pakistani terrorists, what comes back to be
re-used?

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Horace LaBadie
A drone
is a remotely-controlled aircraft that is intended to be brought back
and used again many times.

When they use drones to kill Pakistani terrorists, what comes back to be
re-used?

Armed drones are equipped with rockets or other weapons that it can drop
or fire. The drone itself, like any piloted aircraft, is a weapons
platform, not a weapon.

[charles]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Horace LaBadie
A drone
is a remotely-controlled aircraft that is intended to be brought back
and used again many times.

When they use drones to kill Pakistani terrorists, what comes back to be
re-used?

The drone. It fires missiles.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The point about a cruise missile is that it "cruises" to its target at
a steady speed.

A 'cruise missile' isn't necessarily 'guided'; the WWII V1 and V2
weren't, they were just launched in the desired direction and programmed
(or given enough fuel) to fall out of the sky at the desired distance.
I'm not sure that a 'cruise' missile has to manage 'aerodynamic flight',
but that's certainly the most likely way of sustaining a steady speed in
level or controlled flight through atmosphere.
A 'guided' missile doesn't have to 'cruise'.
A missile doesn't have to be guided or aimed, merely launched. The WWII
V1 and V2 were not guided, and they were only 'aimed' in the loosest
sense of the word.

I think a cruise missile has to be guided because it wouldn't come close to
a target smaller than an entire city to be of any use with that puny
thousand pound payload.
But I agree with you that the word "cruise" doesn't seem to have any
relationship to the fact that the cruise missile needs to also be a guided
missile.
I'm guessing from the responses that the "cruise" part of the missile is a
combination of the fact it
1. Flies aerodynamically so it can go a long distance "cruising" around
2. Flies straight and low so it "cruises" around non ballistically
I'm not sure how that differs from a drone, which must cruise around non
ballistically also.
Maybe the fact that drones are guided differently defines the difference
between a drone missile and a cruise missile. Plus drones probably don't go
all that far from home.

In general a cruise missile will not fly straight.
It will be programmed to fly a more complicated route,
to avoid air defenses, to make interception more difficult,
or to keep the opponents guessing for as long as possible
what the intended target will be,

Jan

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?
Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about
five dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air
base in Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of
explosives hitting the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and stored
munitions.
Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to,
say, "ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with
aerodynamic lift like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9
Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why
it's called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it
flies at a constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile
That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile, where
this wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided" (as
opposed to a "rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled
guided thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

We need to look at the meaning of the word "cruise".
travel at a moderate speed
to fly, drive, or sail at a constant speed that permits maximum
operating efficiency for sustained travel.
to travel at a moderately fast, easily controllable speed
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cruising_speed
A speed for a particular vehicle, ship, or aircraft, usually
somewhat below maximum, that is comfortable and economical.
The point about a cruise missile is that it "cruises" to its target at
a steady speed.

A 'cruise missile' isn't necessarily 'guided'; the WWII V1 and V2
weren't, they were just launched in the desired direction and programmed
(or given enough fuel) to fall out of the sky at the desired distance.

The V-1 was a small aircraft with a guidance system that regulated
altitude and airspeed. It measured the distance travelled by means of an
odometer driven by a vane anemometer. The descriptions refer to it
having a gyrocompass, so the guidance system presumably maintained the
direction of flight.

I agree with Wikipedia's statement that the V-1 "was an early cruise
missile".

The V-2 had an engine that operated for a minute or so after launch and
had a system for ensuring that it had the right pitch (angle) when the
engine shut down. It was then in a ballistic freefall trajectory for the
rest of the flight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Guidance_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket#Technical_details

Post by Whiskers
I'm not sure that a 'cruise' missile has to manage 'aerodynamic flight',
but that's certainly the most likely way of sustaining a steady speed in
level or controlled flight through atmosphere.
A 'guided' missile doesn't have to 'cruise'.
A missile doesn't have to be guided or aimed, merely launched. The WWII
V1 and V2 were not guided, and they were only 'aimed' in the loosest
sense of the word.

[Whiskers]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?
Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about
five dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air
base in Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of
explosives hitting the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and
stored munitions.
Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to,
say, "ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with
aerodynamic lift like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9
Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why
it's called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it
flies at a constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile
That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile,
where this wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided"
(as opposed to a "rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled
guided thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

We need to look at the meaning of the word "cruise".
travel at a moderate speed
to fly, drive, or sail at a constant speed that permits maximum
operating efficiency for sustained travel.
to travel at a moderately fast, easily controllable speed
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cruising_speed
A speed for a particular vehicle, ship, or aircraft, usually
somewhat below maximum, that is comfortable and economical.
The point about a cruise missile is that it "cruises" to its target
at a steady speed.

A 'cruise missile' isn't necessarily 'guided'; the WWII V1 and V2
weren't, they were just launched in the desired direction and
programmed (or given enough fuel) to fall out of the sky at the
desired distance.

The V-1 was a small aircraft with a guidance system that regulated
altitude and airspeed. It measured the distance travelled by means of
an odometer driven by a vane anemometer. The descriptions refer to it
having a gyrocompass, so the guidance system presumably maintained the
direction of flight.
I agree with Wikipedia's statement that the V-1 "was an early cruise
missile".
The V-2 had an engine that operated for a minute or so after launch
and had a system for ensuring that it had the right pitch (angle) when
the engine shut down. It was then in a ballistic freefall trajectory
for the rest of the flight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Guidance_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket#Technical_details

Neither was accurate; they were lucky to hit the intended city.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?
Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about
five dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air
base in Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of
explosives hitting the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and
stored munitions.
Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to,
say, "ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with
aerodynamic lift like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9
Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why
it's called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it
flies at a constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile
That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile,
where this wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided"
(as opposed to a "rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled
guided thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

We need to look at the meaning of the word "cruise".
travel at a moderate speed
to fly, drive, or sail at a constant speed that permits maximum
operating efficiency for sustained travel.
to travel at a moderately fast, easily controllable speed
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cruising_speed
A speed for a particular vehicle, ship, or aircraft, usually
somewhat below maximum, that is comfortable and economical.
The point about a cruise missile is that it "cruises" to its target
at a steady speed.

A 'cruise missile' isn't necessarily 'guided'; the WWII V1 and V2
weren't, they were just launched in the desired direction and
programmed (or given enough fuel) to fall out of the sky at the
desired distance.

The V-1 was a small aircraft with a guidance system that regulated
altitude and airspeed. It measured the distance travelled by means of
an odometer driven by a vane anemometer. The descriptions refer to it
having a gyrocompass, so the guidance system presumably maintained the
direction of flight.
I agree with Wikipedia's statement that the V-1 "was an early cruise
missile".
The V-2 had an engine that operated for a minute or so after launch
and had a system for ensuring that it had the right pitch (angle) when
the engine shut down. It was then in a ballistic freefall trajectory
for the rest of the flight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Guidance_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket#Technical_details

Neither was accurate; they were lucky to hit the intended city.

They were much better at hitting the intended city
than both Bomber Command and the USAF,

Jan

[Alexandre Janssens]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The V-1 was a small aircraft with a guidance system that regulated
altitude and airspeed. It measured the distance travelled by means of an
odometer driven by a vane anemometer. The descriptions refer to it
having a gyrocompass, so the guidance system presumably maintained the
direction of flight.
I agree with Wikipedia's statement that the V-1 "was an early cruise
missile".
The V-2 had an engine that operated for a minute or so after launch and
had a system for ensuring that it had the right pitch (angle) when the
engine shut down. It was then in a ballistic freefall trajectory for the
rest of the flight.

So the V1 was an early cruise missile, because it aerodynamically cruised
to the target guided by an early guidance system.

And the V2 was a ballistic missile because it used up all its fuel on the
way up, and then just followed a ballistic trajectory on the way down.

But that doesn't help us figure out why a drone doesn't cruise.

[charles]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The V-1 was a small aircraft with a guidance system that regulated
altitude and airspeed. It measured the distance travelled by means of an
odometer driven by a vane anemometer. The descriptions refer to it
having a gyrocompass, so the guidance system presumably maintained the
direction of flight.
I agree with Wikipedia's statement that the V-1 "was an early cruise
missile".
The V-2 had an engine that operated for a minute or so after launch and
had a system for ensuring that it had the right pitch (angle) when the
engine shut down. It was then in a ballistic freefall trajectory for the
rest of the flight.

So the V1 was an early cruise missile, because it aerodynamically cruised
to the target guided by an early guidance system.
And the V2 was a ballistic missile because it used up all its fuel on the
way up, and then just followed a ballistic trajectory on the way down.
But that doesn't help us figure out why a drone doesn't cruise.

In general, a drone is piloted, albeit remotely. A cruise missite is fire
and forget.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Alexandre Janssens
So the V1 was an early cruise missile, because it aerodynamically cruised
to the target guided by an early guidance system.

No: the V1 included no guidance system. It could be pointed at
its distant target but the gyroscopic controls were designed
only to keep it flying in a straight line, not to "guide" it.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 10:05:39 -0400, "Don Phillipson"

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
So the V1 was an early cruise missile, because it aerodynamically cruised
to the target guided by an early guidance system.

No: the V1 included no guidance system. It could be pointed at
its distant target but the gyroscopic controls were designed
only to keep it flying in a straight line, not to "guide" it.

That depends on the meaning of "guide".

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alexandre Janssens
So the V1 was an early cruise missile, because it aerodynamically cruised
to the target guided by an early guidance system.

No: the V1 included no guidance system. It could be pointed at
its distant target but the gyroscopic controls were designed
only to keep it flying in a straight line, not to "guide" it.

Then the sailing ships of the age of exploration were 'uguided' too.
They also sailed a preset compass course for most of the time.

That's what Mercator designed his maps for,

Jan

[Mark Brader]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The V-1 was a small aircraft with a guidance system that regulated
altitude and airspeed. It measured the distance travelled...

So the V1 was an early cruise missile...

ObAUE: Both spellings above, V1 and V-1, are commonly used today to
refer to the thing, and similarly V2 and V-2 for the later rocket
missile. However, the original spelling is one that you don't see
any more -- it had a space after the V.

For example, in the Times for 1944-11-09, you can find a report
mentioning that the Germans had said they were using "a second and
far more effective explosive missile, the V 2". And here's a German
newspaper page (in PDF) from 1944-06-27, just a few days after the
German propaganda ministry originally announced the V 1, similarly
spelling it with a space:

http://bc.wimbp.lodz.pl/Content/29843

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Alexandre Janssens

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The V-1 was a small aircraft with a guidance system that regulated
altitude and airspeed. It measured the distance travelled by means of an
odometer driven by a vane anemometer. The descriptions refer to it
having a gyrocompass, so the guidance system presumably maintained the
direction of flight.
I agree with Wikipedia's statement that the V-1 "was an early cruise
missile".
The V-2 had an engine that operated for a minute or so after launch and
had a system for ensuring that it had the right pitch (angle) when the
engine shut down. It was then in a ballistic freefall trajectory for the
rest of the flight.

So the V1 was an early cruise missile, because it aerodynamically cruised
to the target guided by an early guidance system.
And the V2 was a ballistic missile because it used up all its fuel on the
way up, and then just followed a ballistic trajectory on the way down.

The V2 did -not- use up all of its fuel.
They were equipped with a cut-off mechanism
that shut down the engine when the preset velocity
had been reached.

The remaining fuel contributed (a little) to the explosive yield

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?
Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about
five dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air
base in Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of
explosives hitting the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and stored
munitions.
Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to,
say, "ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with
aerodynamic lift like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9
Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why
it's called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it
flies at a constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile
That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile, where
this wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided" (as
opposed to a "rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled
guided thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

We need to look at the meaning of the word "cruise".
travel at a moderate speed
to fly, drive, or sail at a constant speed that permits maximum
operating efficiency for sustained travel.
to travel at a moderately fast, easily controllable speed
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cruising_speed
A speed for a particular vehicle, ship, or aircraft, usually
somewhat below maximum, that is comfortable and economical.
The point about a cruise missile is that it "cruises" to its target at
a steady speed.

A 'cruise missile' isn't necessarily 'guided'; the WWII V1 and V2
weren't, they were just launched in the desired direction and programmed
(or given enough fuel) to fall out of the sky at the desired distance.
I'm not sure that a 'cruise' missile has to manage 'aerodynamic flight',
but that's certainly the most likely way of sustaining a steady speed in
level or controlled flight through atmosphere.
A 'guided' missile doesn't have to 'cruise'.
A missile doesn't have to be guided or aimed, merely launched. The WWII
V1 and V2 were not guided, and they were only 'aimed' in the loosest
sense of the word.

The V1 steered a constant compass course.
It has an odometer driven by a small propellor
to set the distance to be flown.
The main uncertainty was wind conditions on the way. [1]

They were as accurate in practice
as Bomber Cammand's night bombing raids.

The only advantage of Bomber Command was
that they had more carpet to lay down,
(but at a much higher cost)

Jan

[1] But British intelligence succeeded in introducing an aiming bias
by having turned nazi agents give false impact reports.

[Jonas Schneider]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

This 2013 article better defines Cruise Missiles as being a missile that
Obama might use against Syria as a punitive strike against government
facilities for having used chemical weapons.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-08/fyi-cruise-missiles

They say cruise missiles are distinct from drones and other missiles in a
few ways (e.g., they are self guided) but mostly in their distance.
"They are distinct from regular (non-cruise) missiles primarily because
they go really far."

Even though that article was written in Obamadays, it concludes with
"Launching cruise missiles feels like a strong military action for a
president to take, but it's very unlikely to be a decisive one."

[Snidely]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

This 2013 article better defines Cruise Missiles as being a missile that
Obama might use against Syria as a punitive strike against government
facilities for having used chemical weapons.

That's a better definition? Cruise missiles were so named well before
Obama took office as President, and had been deployed long before then.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-08/fyi-cruise-missiles
They say cruise missiles are distinct from drones and other missiles in a
few ways (e.g., they are self guided) but mostly in their distance.
"They are distinct from regular (non-cruise) missiles primarily because
they go really far."
Even though that article was written in Obamadays, it concludes with
"Launching cruise missiles feels like a strong military action for a
president to take, but it's very unlikely to be a decisive one."

That depends on both the target and the quantity of missiles, but a
general opinion is that "you can't win without boots on the ground".

/dps

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

This 2013 article better defines Cruise Missiles as being a missile that
Obama might use against Syria as a punitive strike against government
facilities for having used chemical weapons.

That's a better definition? Cruise missiles were so named well before
Obama took office as President, and had been deployed long before then.

Or not deployed. The biggest demonstration ever in Amsterdam (1981)
stopped the American deployment of nuclear armed cruise missiles,
at least in The Netherlands,

Jan

[Robert Bannister]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

This 2013 article better defines Cruise Missiles as being a missile that
Obama might use against Syria as a punitive strike against government
facilities for having used chemical weapons.

That's a better definition? Cruise missiles were so named well before
Obama took office as President, and had been deployed long before then.

Or not deployed. The biggest demonstration ever in Amsterdam (1981)
stopped the American deployment of nuclear armed cruise missiles,
at least in The Netherlands,

And yet in Germany, when I was in Berlin in 1983, I heard a lot of
voices in favour: "Lieber die Pershing im Garten als die SS-20 auf dem
Dach."

(Very rough translation: I'd rather have an American missile in my
garden than a Russian missile on my roof)

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

This 2013 article better defines Cruise Missiles as being a missile that
Obama might use against Syria as a punitive strike against government
facilities for having used chemical weapons.

That's a better definition? Cruise missiles were so named well before
Obama took office as President, and had been deployed long before then.

Or not deployed. The biggest demonstration ever in Amsterdam (1981)
stopped the American deployment of nuclear armed cruise missiles,
at least in The Netherlands,

And yet in Germany, when I was in Berlin in 1983, I heard a lot of
voices in favour: "Lieber die Pershing im Garten als die SS-20 auf dem
Dach."
(Very rough translation: I'd rather have an American missile in my
garden than a Russian missile on my roof)

After posting, I googled that and found a couple of grammatical issues.

*If you have no interest in German, move on now.*

One site had "Lieber ein Pershing" - I think most German words ending in
-ing are masculine as is the word for missile, "Flugkörper" - but back
then, I suspect most people were thinking "Rakete" (rocket) which is
feminine.

Quite a number of sites had "aufs/auf das Dach", indicating a split
between those who thought of the missile landing on the roof and those
who thought it was going to fall onto the roof.
I remember best with indefinite articles: 'ne Pershing, 'ne SS20.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

This 2013 article better defines Cruise Missiles as being a missile that
Obama might use against Syria as a punitive strike against government
facilities for having used chemical weapons.

That's a better definition? Cruise missiles were so named well before
Obama took office as President, and had been deployed long before then.

Or not deployed. The biggest demonstration ever in Amsterdam (1981)
stopped the American deployment of nuclear armed cruise missiles,
at least in The Netherlands,

And yet in Germany, when I was in Berlin in 1983, I heard a lot of
voices in favour: "Lieber die Pershing im Garten als die SS-20 auf dem
Dach."
(Very rough translation: I'd rather have an American missile in my
garden than a Russian missile on my roof)

No doubt. The same slogan circulated in the Netherlands too,
among the remaining cold warriors.

Jan

[Whiskers]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:35:57 +0000 (UTC), Alexandre Janssens

Post by Alexandre Janssens
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic
jet-propelled guided thing that doesn't have a ballistic
trajectory.

This 2013 article better defines Cruise Missiles as being a
missile that Obama might use against Syria as a punitive strike
against government facilities for having used chemical weapons.

That's a better definition? Cruise missiles were so named well
before Obama took office as President, and had been deployed long
before then.

Or not deployed. The biggest demonstration ever in Amsterdam (1981)
stopped the American deployment of nuclear armed cruise missiles,
at least in The Netherlands,

And yet in Germany, when I was in Berlin in 1983, I heard a lot of
voices in favour: "Lieber die Pershing im Garten als die SS-20 auf
dem Dach."
(Very rough translation: I'd rather have an American missile in my
garden than a Russian missile on my roof)

No doubt. The same slogan circulated in the Netherlands too, among the
remaining cold warriors.

On the other hand, here in Britain there were some who said 'better red
than dead' - meaning they'd prefer to live under the Soviet Union than
die resisting.

[Dingbat]

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?

According to this, a cruise missile fired from a submarine is launched by a torpedo. Calling it an air torpedo would change the description of this launch to the awkward 'an air torpedo launched by a sea torpedo':

In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK for torpedo-launch from their nuclear attack submarines.

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about five
dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air base in
Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of explosives hitting
the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and stored munitions.
Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to, say,
"ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with aerodynamic lift
like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9
Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why it's
called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it flies at a
constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

If it's a constant speed, that's its cruise speed, so why not 'cruise missile'?

Post by Alexandre Janssens
That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile, where this
wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided" (as opposed to a
"rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

[ErrolC]

Post by Dingbat

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?

According to this, a cruise missile fired from a submarine is launched
by a torpedo. Calling it an air torpedo would change the description
In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK for torpedo-launch
from their nuclear attack submarines.

<snip>

In this case, it means launch from a torpedo tube, rather than dedicated
missile-launch tubes as fitted to some US Navy 'attack' submarines.

--
Errol Cavit

[Don Phillipson]

Post by ErrolC

Post by Dingbat
According to this, a cruise missile fired from a submarine is launched
by a torpedo. Calling it an air torpedo would change the description
In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK for torpedo-launch
from their nuclear attack submarines.

<snip>
In this case, it means launch from a torpedo tube, rather than dedicated
missile-launch tubes as fitted to some US Navy 'attack' submarines.

Submarines' torpedo tubes are at the bow (and stern) of
the boat, and point horizontally. When ballistic rockets were
first installed in submarines, they were launched from vertical
tubes in the middle of the boat.

(The word torpedo originally identified a type of fish
(Linnaeus, 1758) for which the underwater explosive
was named approx. 1800 (by inventor Robert Fulton,
Wikipedia tells us).)

[ErrolC]

<snip>

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by ErrolC
In this case, it means launch from a torpedo tube, rather than dedicated
missile-launch tubes as fitted to some US Navy 'attack' submarines.

Submarines' torpedo tubes are at the bow (and stern) of
the boat, and point horizontally. When ballistic rockets were
first installed in submarines, they were launched from vertical
tubes in the middle of the boat.

Ballistic missiles still are.
Later USN Los Angeles class SSNs have 12 vertical tubes for Tomahawk
cruise missiles, while Russian Oscars have 24 tubes (for P-700).
Some former USN SSBNs have been converted to SSGNs ('Guided' rather
than 'Ballistic'), with seven Tomahawks in each SLBM tube. Current-build
USN Virginia-class SSNs have two large vertical tubes that can contain
seven Tomahawks each.

--
Errol Cavit

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by ErrolC

Post by Dingbat

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?

According to this, a cruise missile fired from a submarine is launched
by a torpedo. Calling it an air torpedo would change the description
In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK for torpedo-launch
from their nuclear attack submarines.

<snip>
In this case, it means launch from a torpedo tube, rather than dedicated
missile-launch tubes as fitted to some US Navy 'attack' submarines.

An 'attack submarine' is -not- one that launches ballistic missiles.
Also known as a hunter-killer submarine,
it is designed to hunt and kill other submarines.

An obvious role for them is to shadow missile launching submarines,

Jan

[Snidely]

On Friday, ErrolC pointed out that ...

Post by ErrolC

Post by Dingbat

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?

According to this, a cruise missile fired from a submarine is launched
by a torpedo. Calling it an air torpedo would change the description
In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK for torpedo-launch
from their nuclear attack submarines.

<snip>
In this case, it means launch from a torpedo tube, rather than dedicated
missile-launch tubes as fitted to some US Navy 'attack' submarines.

But far more cruise missiles are carried by cruisers than subs, no?
These may be launched from racks on deck, or from launch rails. I seem
to recall that these use rocket motors (RATO) to get out of the rack at
speed; the speed may be used to start the jet engine (since a power
cart would have a hard time keeping up).

There are also cruise missiles launched from aircraft (usually bombers,
IIANM), used in what is called a "standoff strike". Standoff is used
for distance indication rather than indicating two opponents facing
each other.

Was Skybolt an early attempt at an air-launched cruise missile? Was
the Snark supposed to be a ground-launched cruise missile? Both fell
victim to the technology not being ready at the time.

/dps "Once upon a time I read more than Heinlein and Caidin"

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Snidely
On Friday, ErrolC pointed out that ...

Post by ErrolC

Post by Dingbat

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?

According to this, a cruise missile fired from a submarine is launched
by a torpedo. Calling it an air torpedo would change the description
In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK for torpedo-launch
from their nuclear attack submarines.

<snip>
In this case, it means launch from a torpedo tube, rather than dedicated
missile-launch tubes as fitted to some US Navy 'attack' submarines.

But far more cruise missiles are carried by cruisers than subs, no?

No. Using a cruiser is overdoing it.
A destroyer will do.

Jan

[ErrolC]

<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Snidely
But far more cruise missiles are carried by cruisers than subs, no?

No. Using a cruiser is overdoing it.
A destroyer will do.

The labeling of modern warships as destroyers vs cruisers is quite arbitrary.
However, there are more destroyers than cruisers, the destroyers have fewer
vertical launch cells than cruisers, but still likely carry more in aggregate
than the cruisers. Definitely more on surface warships than submarines.

--
Errol Cavit

[Snidely]

Dingbat is guilty of
<12f5bdf3-ed53-4de3-92c6-***@googlegroups.com> as of 4/7/2017
10:29:24 PM

Post by Dingbat

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?

According to this, a cruise missile fired from a submarine is launched by a
torpedo. Calling it an air torpedo would change the description of this
In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK for torpedo-launch from
their nuclear attack submarines.

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about five
dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air base in
Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of explosives hitting
the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and stored munitions.
Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to, say,
"ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with aerodynamic lift
like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9
Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why it's
called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it flies at a
constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

If it's a constant speed, that's its cruise speed, so why not 'cruise missile'?

Post by Alexandre Janssens
That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile, where this
wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided" (as opposed to a
"rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

Well, yes. Part of the reason for the name is to distinguish this
particular weapon from other types of missiles (not just ballistic
missiles, but also the air-to-air, air-to-ground, and ground-to-air
missiles that may be either pre-aimed or guided or self-guided (viz
"heat-seeking missiles)). Most AtoA, AtoG, GtoA missiles are rocket
powered for fast launch and rapid closing speeds. Cruise missiles tend
to be jet-powered, as the OP noted, because that helps with both range
and manuvering.

/dps

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Snidely
Dingbat is guilty of
10:29:24 PM

Post by Dingbat

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?

According to this, a cruise missile fired from a submarine is launched by a
torpedo. Calling it an air torpedo would change the description of this
In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK for torpedo-launch from
their nuclear attack submarines.

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about five
dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air base in
Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of explosives hitting
the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and stored munitions.
Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to, say,
"ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with aerodynamic lift
like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9
Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why it's
called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it flies at a
constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

If it's a constant speed, that's its cruise speed, so why not 'cruise missile'?

Post by Alexandre Janssens
That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile, where this
wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided" (as opposed to a
"rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

Well, yes. Part of the reason for the name is to distinguish this
particular weapon from other types of missiles (not just ballistic
missiles, but also the air-to-air, air-to-ground, and ground-to-air
missiles that may be either pre-aimed or guided or self-guided (viz
"heat-seeking missiles)). Most AtoA, AtoG, GtoA missiles are rocket
powered for fast launch and rapid closing speeds. Cruise missiles tend
to be jet-powered, as the OP noted, because that helps with both range
and manuvering.

The selling point of cruise misslies (from V1 onwards) is low cost.
These days even a millon+ is still low cost,

Jan

[charles]

Post by Snidely
Dingbat is guilty of
10:29:24 PM

Post by Dingbat

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?

According to this, a cruise missile fired from a submarine is
launched by a torpedo. Calling it an air torpedo would change the
description of this launch to the awkward 'an air torpedo launched by
In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK for
torpedo-launch from their nuclear attack submarines.

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about
five dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air
base in Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of
explosives hitting the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and
stored munitions.
Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to,
say, "ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with
aerodynamic lift like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9
Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why
it's called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it
flies at a constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

If it's a constant speed, that's its cruise speed, so why not 'cruise missile'?

Post by Alexandre Janssens
That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile,
where this wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided"
(as opposed to a "rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled
guided thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

Well, yes. Part of the reason for the name is to distinguish this
particular weapon from other types of missiles (not just ballistic
missiles, but also the air-to-air, air-to-ground, and ground-to-air
missiles that may be either pre-aimed or guided or self-guided (viz
"heat-seeking missiles)). Most AtoA, AtoG, GtoA missiles are rocket
powered for fast launch and rapid closing speeds. Cruise missiles tend
to be jet-powered, as the OP noted, because that helps with both range
and manuvering.

The selling point of cruise misslies (from V1 onwards) is low cost. These
days even a millon+ is still low cost,

Very low cost in respect of the users' people.

[Snidely]

J. J. Lodder suggested that ...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Snidely
Dingbat is guilty of
10:29:24 PM

Post by Dingbat

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Why is a non-ballistic guided air torpedo called a "cruise missile"?

According to this, a cruise missile fired from a submarine is launched by a
torpedo. Calling it an air torpedo would change the description of this
In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK for torpedo-launch
from their nuclear attack submarines.

Post by Alexandre Janssens
Saw the news just now, that the USS Ross and USS Porter fired about five
dozen 500mph "Tomahawk cruise missiles" against the Shayrat air base in
Syria, north of Damascus, with the thousand-pounds of explosives hitting
the tarmac, hangars, the control tower, and stored munitions.
Google tells me the missiles flow "under the radar" as opposed to, say,
"ballistic missiles" which don't sustain themselves with aerodynamic lift
like a cruise missile apparently does.
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=9
Wikipedia says it flies "in the atmosphere", which doesn't say why it's
called a "cruise" missile either but it does mention that it flies at a
constant speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

If it's a constant speed, that's its cruise speed, so why not 'cruise missile'?

Post by Alexandre Janssens
That wikipedia article says the V1 was the first cruise missile, where
this wikipedia article defines a "missile" as being "guided" (as opposed
to a "rocket" which isn't guided, apparently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile
So, a "cruise missile" is apparently an aerodynamic jet-propelled guided
thing that doesn't have a ballistic trajectory.

Well, yes. Part of the reason for the name is to distinguish this
particular weapon from other types of missiles (not just ballistic
missiles, but also the air-to-air, air-to-ground, and ground-to-air
missiles that may be either pre-aimed or guided or self-guided (viz
"heat-seeking missiles)). Most AtoA, AtoG, GtoA missiles are rocket
powered for fast launch and rapid closing speeds. Cruise missiles tend
to be jet-powered, as the OP noted, because that helps with both range
and manuvering.

The selling point of cruise misslies (from V1 onwards) is low cost.
These days even a millon+ is still low cost,

No argument.

<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor>
Unit cost. US$150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009)

And that's not including training the scarce part of that assembly ...
the USAF has a pilot shortage.

/dps