Author Topic: Long range cruise missile. (Read 1003 times)

farbod · « **on:** November 02, 2011, 10:42:09 AM »

I was wondering why does some cruise missile have such a longer range that other cruise missile considering they are not that much bigger.

for example the pakistani barbur missile and our qader missile dont seem to have a lot of size difference but the barbur missile has a range 500km more.
why is that so?

also can Iran make a cruise missile with range 3000+ km?

aryana · « **Reply #1 on:** November 04, 2011, 12:17:01 AM »

no iran cant make micro turbo jet.

maydayfire · « **Reply #2 on:** November 04, 2011, 12:34:25 AM »

Quote from: aryana on November 04, 2011, 12:17:01 AM

no iran cant make micro turbo jet.

brother, you dont have to say something random.

maydayfire · « **Reply #3 on:** November 04, 2011, 12:53:11 AM »

Quote from: farbod on November 02, 2011, 10:42:09 AM

I was wondering why does some cruise missile have such a longer range that other cruise missile considering they are not that much bigger.

for example the pakistani barbur missile and our qader missile dont seem to have a lot of size difference but the barbur missile has a range 500km more.
why is that so?

this is a very good question. for example lets compare the range and size of the mig-29 to the range and size of the su-27

MIG-29;
Length:    56.9 ft
Wingspan:    37.3 ft
Height:    15.5 ft
RANGE:    810 nm (1,500 km) with internal fuel

SU-27:
Length    71.92 ft
Wingspan    48.17 ft
Height    19.42 ft
RANGE: 2,010 nm (3,720 km) with internal fuel

the Su-27 is only 1.5 bigger than the Mig-29 but its range is about 2.5 times greater. This tells us that range does not increase linearly with size. the main factors are fuel payload, engine efficiancy (ratio of thrust over fuel consumption) , weight and drag. All of these factors need to be compared.

Numbers · « **Reply #4 on:** November 04, 2011, 06:08:12 AM »

Here are:

MIG-29:
Loaded weight: 15,300 kg
Wing loading: 442 kg/m² (90.5 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.08
Range: 1,430 km

Engine: 2 x Klimov RD-33 turbofan
Engine Length: 4,229 mm (166.50 in)
Engine Diameter: 1,000 mm (39.37 in)
^^^^

SU-27:
Loaded weight: 23,430 kg
Wing loading: 371 kg/m² (76 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.07
Range: 3,530 km

Engine: 2 x Lyulka AL-31F turbofan
Engine Length: 4,990 millimetres (196 in)
Engine Diameter: 905 millimetres (35.6 in) inlet; 1,280 millimetres (50 in) maximum external
^^^^

So Su-27 has engines that are bigger than Mig-29 but provide the same trust per weight. Trust/Weight of Mig-29 equals
Trust/weight of Su-27. The relationship is linear.

But Bigger range of Su-27 is given by higher efficiency of Su-27 engines. Su-27 Turbofan engine consumes less fuel. Probably
due to larger "Torque Force" of bigger (radius) Turbine and Turbine Fan.

The bigger is the radius of engine Turbine and Turbine Fan the more efficient (in fuel consumption) is the engine. Cruise
missiles with bigger radius will have larger range.

Longer engine also has higher efficiency since fuel is passed through longer turbine (which uses more kinetic energy of super
heated fuel gas). Cruise missiles with longer engine and therefor longer frame (or chassis) will have larger range.

parthenon · « **Reply #5 on:** November 04, 2011, 10:41:08 AM »

Quote

...
The bigger is the radius of engine Turbine and Turbine Fan the more efficient (in fuel consumption) is the engine. Cruise
missiles with bigger radius will have larger range.

Longer engine also has higher efficiency since fuel is passed through longer turbine (which uses more kinetic energy of super
heated fuel gas). Cruise missiles with longer engine and therefor longer frame (or chassis) will have larger range

The short and sweet: turboFAN, the magic word!!!

...but still subsonic!
I suspect Iran would rather bet on their supersonic (Mach 3 or more) endo-atmospheric ("quasi-ballistic") missiles, like the mobile (solid-fueled) but rather short-ranged (300km) Fateh (or "KF" AShM) and the most likely bunker-launched (liquid-fueled) 800km ranged Qiam.

Cheers!
"Bunker"Bill aka "the member formerly known as Parthenon" (MFKAP)

Numbers · « **Reply #6 on:** November 04, 2011, 12:10:16 PM »

Quote from: parthenon

I suspect Iran would rather bet on their supersonic (Mach 3 or more) endo-atmospheric ("quasi-ballistic") missiles, like the mobile
(solid-fueled) but rather short-ranged (300km) Fateh AShM.

Well, Fateh does solve Iran's problems with enemy Navy in range of 300 kilometers. Ballistic Missile technology means it can
maneuver and have higher speed to make intercept more difficult.

aryaghiai · « **Reply #7 on:** December 15, 2011, 04:28:18 AM »

he Kh-55 (Russian: Х-55; NATO:AS-15 'Kent'; RKV-500;) is a Soviet/Russian air-launched cruise missile, designed by MKB Raduga. It has a range of up to 3,000 km (1,620 nmi) and can carry conventional or nuclear warheads.
It is powered by a single R95-300 turbofan engine, with pop-out wings for cruising efficiency. It can be launched from both high and low altitudes, and flies at subsonic speeds at low levels (under 110 m/300 ft altitude). After launch, the missile's folded wings, tail surfaces and engine deploy. It is guided through a combination of an inertial guidance system plus a terrain contour-matching guidance system which uses radar and images stored in the memory of an onboard computer to find its target. This allows the missile to guide itself to the target with a high degree of accuracy, with a reported[citation needed] CEP of 15 meters.
INVENTORY:
Iran: 12

Iran Military Forum

Author Topic: Long range cruise missile. (Read 1003 times)

farbod

Long range cruise missile.

aryana

Re: Long range cruise missile.

maydayfire

Re: Long range cruise missile.

maydayfire

Re: Long range cruise missile.

Numbers

Re: Long range cruise missile.

parthenon

Re: Long range cruise missile.

Numbers

Re: Long range cruise missile.

aryaghiai

Re: Long range cruise missile.