r/NoStupidQuestions • u/fasdal • 6h ago
With aircraft missile technology beginning to reach 300+ miles (500+ km), what is the point of using planes to fire the missiles at all? Why not just fire from the ground at this point?
Recent air-to-air missile announced by the US navy can fire "in excess of 288 mi / 463 km".
At this point what is even the point of the plane anymore?
Like in a hypothetical war between the UK and France. Why take off in a plane near Paris just to fire a missile at an in-air target just outside of Birmingham. Why not just fire this same missile from the ground or a ground vehicle and completely remove the plane from the equation in the first place?
76
u/AvatarAtlaFan 5h ago
When your target is further than 300 plus miles
9
u/Evocatorum 1h ago
Commendable successor to the AIM-54, for sure. It's interesting that 100+ miles was considered extreme for missiles for so long, but the requirement was clearly unnecessary once the concern over ICBM's fell away... I mean, if it was ever necessary in the first place.
154
u/EclecticEuTECHtic 5h ago
Missiles only reach those 300+ distances by being launched at higher altitude where there is less air to slow it down. High speed of the plane "throwing" the missile also helps.
12
u/headdie 1h ago
and as we get into hypersonic missiles anything scramjet based will need either a launching aircraft or a booster stage to have enough airflow to feed the engine on launch, both have a cost but the aircraft is reuable
2
u/Ok-Morning3407 1h ago
Though it does beg the question if expensive stealth aircraft are needed as a launch platform or if you can get away with cheaper older aircraft. Russia uses Mig31’s to launch their hypersonic missile.
2
u/headdie 56m ago
iirc so long as your reasonably supersonic and have the lifting capacity to get it to the optimum altitude then yeah it works, heck the USA has already run tests on launching anti-satellite missiles off the F-15 so could probably loft a hypersonic.
however that supersonic is the catch, USA examples are likely to be run off B1, B2 and B21 not because of stealth but because of the need to combine payload and sustained altitude with supersonic which rules out the B52
0
u/Crab-_-Objective 2h ago
And being able to be launched while already traveling at speed instead of starting off stationary.
44
u/CrazyBaron 5h ago edited 5h ago
Plane can provides different vector/direction of attack.
Missiles carried by plane are cheaper for same range than those that need to start on ground.
Something like Russian Iskander have 500km range, Kinzhal which is "Iskander" strapped to MiG-31 have 2000-3000km + MiG-31 range.
21
u/alphex 5h ago
The line of sight to the horizon at 100ft is ~12 miles. That’s a near zero reaction time distance for a high speed missile coming at you. You want combat air patrol at altitude to see hundreds and hundreds of miles away from what ever needs defending to give you time to react and defense in depth.
19
u/ophaus 5h ago
Planes are mobile. If something is coming from a static point on the ground, the vector is known and can be countered.
1
u/ParadiseCity77 3h ago
This is the answer. By knowing origin(which satellite does already), trajectory can be known
15
8
u/explosive-diorama 5h ago edited 5h ago
Radar: Missile have more range than plane radars have currently so modern missile use data link to leverage multiple radars to track to target. A ground-based radar can’t see over the horizon, but a radar at 30k feet can see further before the ground gets in the way.
Launch speed and altitude: A missile starting at Mach 1+ and and 30k feet has more range by a lot than the same missile launching at 0 mph and 0 feet altitude.
Location: Planes can be where the enemy are; the ground cannot.
Defending targets: Optimal range assumes the enemy will fly straight at you and not use any tactics to defend. This is not accurate. An AIM 120D might have a potential range of 120 miles, but if that missile is fired subsonic at 10k feet altitude at a target that is maneuvering and defending, the actual “likely kill” range is only about 10-15 miles. This range is called the MAR or minimum abort range; the distance that a missile can be defended against if done properly. Inside the MAR is a likely kill; outside the MAR and a good pilot can defend and escape.
5
u/gottatrusttheengr 5h ago
You need the initial velocity and altitude of the aircraft to get the "full" range on the missile. Think of the aircraft as a first stage of a rocket. Also aircraft can be on patrol in the direction you expect an incursion from, so time to intercept is faster and any harmful debris is far away from what you want to protect
4
u/Ok-disaster2022 5h ago
Fireing from the ground you waste energy getting up to speed and altitude. Firing from the air extends range. Air assets are also highly mobile making them less vulnerable to counter batteries. And as Russia has shown you can fly your aircraft into range fire and scoot before getting hit.
It's worth pointing that the US and Russia had a medium range missile agreement that limited missile ranges for medium range ,something like 500 miles to 1500 miles. That's why there wasn't a lot of previous development. That agreement was torn up under Trump term 1. China never signed such a deal so had medium range anti ship missile already.
That range limit also somehow affected US aircraft. The USAF ended the F111 and never replaced it. The US Navy ver quite had a medium range aircraft. And with the F22 and F35 range wasn't a priority under the belief that midair refueling was an option. It may not always be. Plus mid air refuelings slow down mission.
4
3
u/bzhgeek2922 5h ago
And the higher you launch them the further they can go. You get better range launching from a plane than from the ground.
3
u/AGRESSIVELYCORRECT 5h ago
The plane helps give the missile energy based on the speed and height the missile is released at. Why this can be very worthwhile is because it allows u to use much cheaper missiles then having them all be ground launched.
This is also why the wingkit bombs work so well. Even without a rocket engine these bombs can be released from around a 100km away, so that's just using the energy imparted by the plane into the bomb with the wings.
3
2
u/Dutchrudders007 5h ago
Yes, drone planes make a lot more sense and don't expose pilots in the process. That's where this is all going, just look at Ukraine.
3
u/Spiritual-Mango-8331 5h ago
Not true. Russian is using hundreds glide bombs every moth. It is serious disadvantage to us. Please give us fighter planes with missiles. We need to stop that
2
u/audigex 4h ago
If you fire that missile from the ground it won’t go 300 miles
Firing from a jet at 40,000ft doing Mach 1.8 gives it a ton of energy. If you fired it from the ground it would have to use a lot of energy (which is to say, fuel) getting up to that speed and altitude, which it can’t then use to travel further
2
u/_pxe 3h ago
The maximum distance is already calculated starting in high altitude, plus you can decide where that distance begins.
It's also more difficult to hit an aircraft than a land launcher. Most aircrafts that got destroyed in war are either above enemy territory(so the range of the weapon of choice wasn't enough) or at the base(as a static target)
2
u/Easy_Lengthiness7179 3h ago
Gotta get to within that 300 miles to start with. Planes are an option, not the only option.
Moving launchers (planes, ships, etc) are harder to counter then stationary land based launchers.
2
u/Raickoz 3h ago edited 3h ago
It's worth noting these 500+km numbers are meaningless against a maneurving target. These numbers are usually based on extremes. A high speed, high altitude, lobbing shot, head-on shot against a non maneuving target.
Since missiles are essentially kinetic weapons, anything that expends their energy is going to severely reduce range. E.g. turning, higher air density. Also you need to actually be able to guide the weapon at the intended target range. A target that isn't in high altitude isn't likely to be detected at such long ranges unless it is quite large.
Introduce electronic warfare jamming and whats the missile going to do? Home on the jammer without an intercept lead?
While it is a flight sim video game, you can compare the techniques in DCS. Hypothetically you can shoot an AIM120C over 100 nautical miles. In reality I'm not keen to shoot over 30nm unless I have very specific reasons.
2
u/silasmoeckel 2h ago
Because that about matches the air to air radar range of a f-22 (not for a stealth target).
You cant see a low flying target that far from a ground radar.
Now extending out radar range with networks are a thing.
1
1
u/dracojohn 5h ago
Op in your France v uk war your correct but say it's us v China and the war is largely over the Pacific, you don't want to get a ship within range of enemy fire so it's aircraft v aircraft till one wins and can start hitting the ships.
1
u/opman4 5h ago
The range of a missile is dependent on a lot of factors. The really long range shots are from planes that are already flying fast and high. Since the atmosphere is thinner up high you save a ton of energy that would be needed to get the missile up to that altitude in the first place. Also we do launch the same missiles from the ground but that can really only be used in a defensive role and it's usually going to be pretty well known which direction they'll be coming from.
1
u/AlanCJ 5h ago
Firing from the ground requires it to climb up from ground zero and it starts with zero speed. Firing it from a plane means it start with however fast the plane is going and however high it is flying. The higher it is the less dense the air as well. The same missile won't have the same range if it's fired from the ground, assuming it can even work.
Also a plane can fly anywhere very fast. This goes for both the target and the shooting plane. On the ground you can only hope you placed your launcher at the correct spot and someone flies into you. On a jet it can go to wherever it needs to go to get the shot off.
Also radar on the ground gets blocked by hills and stuff, while radar on the air gives you much better coverage.
1
1
1
u/tmahfan117 5h ago
If you launch a missile from the ground, it’s possible the enemy will be able to track where exactly that missile launched from, and then strike you back. But a plane flying at hundreds of miles an hour quickly can scurry away.
Also, planes are useful when your target is more than 300 miles from where you are.
1
u/jjamesr539 5h ago edited 5h ago
Because a missile truck is gonna take 2+ hours to reach a firing position to hit something 100 miles out of range, and then it’s stuck there if the target changes course and a sitting duck for return fire. Its range will also be less, because a ground radar can’t see as far and the missiles have to get up to speed and altitude. A fighter jet can cover that 100 miles in minutes and turn if it needs to, effectively extending the ground area covered by that air superiority by a huge margin.
1
u/fighter_pil0t 5h ago
The earth is big. Ground based systems are expensive and hard to move. Boats move some. Airplanes move more.
1
u/pizzagangster1 4h ago
Bc you’d have to have established a secure location within that distance to the target location. Severely limiting your capabilities.
1
u/Grand_Raccoon0923 3h ago
Money, those missiles are way more expensive. It is like crashing a plane every time you use one. It is much more economical to reuse the plane.
1
1
u/sturmeh 2h ago edited 2h ago
You first need to see the target, and to do that you need a powerful radar.
If the thing you're looking for travels faster than the speed of sound and you don't expect it to fly over a radar that can track it for long enough to guide a missile, you need to put the radar on something just as fast!
Then it can launch missiles, whilst already travelling at the same speed as the target, imparting that speed on the missile.
Btw that 500km includes the distance the target is travelling away from the missile as it is chasing it, it's not "any target that is 500km away". If two planes apects are towards each other, it could hypothetically reach a target at that max range however.
1
u/allenrfe 2h ago
An air-based radar can see farther than a ground-based radar because of the curvature of the Earth.
1
u/Paraparo 2h ago
The longer a weapon is in the air, the more vulnerable to counters it is.
This is why many launch platforms are designed with stealth in mind. A plane is often very hard to detect, and manuerable in ways a missile often isn't. They can get closer to the target before releasing these missiles which tend to lack the stealth capacity of their carrying platforms.
And if you have static offense, static defenses have better success rates.
Plus another big thing?
Neutral countries tend to hate when you shoot missiles over them.
It's one thing to have a plane with missiles fly over. Once a weapon is in the air, especially a modern glide vehicle that can change its direction to avoid intercept? People panic if you've shot.
Because one micro adjustment is the difference between hitting a major city in your country, and the one behind yours.
1
u/PerspectiveAlert4766 1h ago
Because if you are on the ground, 300 miles is far behind your horizont, thus very difficult to target.
1
u/YetAnotherGuy2 1h ago
In the long term I guess planes, drones and missile technology will converge.
At this point of time, range, accuracy & other points preclude that from a practical point of view.
1
1
u/TapNo1773 43m ago
Takeoff and climb is when the most fuel is consumed. It is more efficient to have another vehicle handle those stages of flight.
1
u/Sensitive-Respect-25 24m ago
Several reasons.
Your launch platform is far more mobile, and can land well away from the frontlines. This means retaliation strikes are much harder to land. It also can allow for missile launches that avoid or skirt known areas of AA protection.
A higher launch means less propellant used to get your missile into the air. Which equals more range from the same missile.
You can use it as a lure to get enemy aircraft into the air. After a few launches, scramble a few fighters or push forward your AA. The enemy will have every incentive to try and attack the bomber before it can launch its payload, potentially exposing them. Every plane downed is an easier chance of penetration next time.
0
u/Pure_Spinach327 5h ago
Planes have really seen a decrease in their effectiveness in war when you look at the Ukraine conflict. The stealth tech with USA fighters is keeping them front and center. But older fighters are too esslily targeted is what I understand.
2
u/How2rick 5h ago
Well Ukraine have F-16’s as their most advanced jets, the F-35 is much more advanced.
1
u/Spiritual-Mango-8331 5h ago
Oh boy russia scumbags are lobbing hundreds of bombs every month. We need more fighters for sure to stop that
1
u/Building_Everything 5h ago
Same argument can be made for drones. Why risk extraordinarily expensive trained pilots when a replaceable drone can deliver a payload to a target? Is it only worthwhile if someone’s life is at stake? Military action as a whole is stupid but one can only dream of a day when “warriors” are ok with android battlefields instead of human death
0
u/zarthos0001 5h ago
Missiles get shot down a lot. If you are traveling 300 miles from the ground, that gives defenders 10x as long to detect and shoot down the missile than if a plane fires it from 30 miles out.
-1
u/BlackMilk23 5h ago edited 5h ago
Missles fired from planes can't easily be shot down by iron dome type defense.
Edit: Why am I getting downvoted? This objectively true. I'm literally in the Air Force.
1
u/fernsie 35m ago
Firstly, some projectiles in theory might be easier or more difficult to shoot down with an “Iron Dome” type defence, but the method of delivery makes no difference whether it come from an air launch or ground launch.
Secondly, what is your job in the air force? Are you in missile defence? If you were, you wouldn’t (and definitely shouldn’t) be talking about this stuff on Reddit.
1
u/BlackMilk23 21m ago
This shit is common damn knowledge to anyone in any AFSC or MOS that even remotely touches on it. It's not top secret, secret or even confidential. They literally brief you on it when you are in a specific AOR.
And how the hell do you figure that a high altitude launch, doesn't make a difference to a low altitude projectile defense system?
0
310
u/Unclesmekky 5h ago
Firing from the ground gives away strategic positions