18
$\begingroup$

So, at work we have had an ongoing debate for several months now about whether missiles are aircraft or not. We all agree that they're not airplanes of course, but... are they to be considered aircraft? We cannot find consensus, even after long and hefty debate.

The argument for it being an aircraft is that it is a craft (made by humans) that operates in the air.

The arguments for it not being an aircraft are plenty. Some say that they're not registered as such with the authorities, some say in order for it to be an aircraft it needs to be able to transport something or someone.

To end the debate, I just checked the wikipedia page. It's a bit unclear what Wikipedia's stance on the matter is: it mentions that it needs to generate lift from the air for it to be able to be classified an aerodyne, and that missiles don't do a lot of that. But elsewhere it is implies that they do?

I can imagine that this is more of a linguistical question than a technical question, but I still think this site is more suited for it than e.g. ELL-SE. I hope it is allowed here?

I can also imagine this question is very opinionated and thus not suitable to be asked on SE. I am however looking for "opinions" backed up by reasoning and deduction, based on facts. Those facts can be both technical and linguistical in nature.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
10
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ For what purpose? We categorize and define things for reasons - safety regulations, airspace use, taxation, etc. What is the reason or need to either call them aircraft, or not? Without context it's purely a matter of interpretation and opinion. $\endgroup$
    – Michael Hall
    Commented Jul 15 at 14:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Opifex you realize there are two extremely different objects which both have "missile" in the name? aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16215/… $\endgroup$
    – Fattie
    Commented Jul 17 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Fattie I am aware, yes. However, I disagree that they're "Extremely different" objects. They generally share the same function, and for the average lay person they are pretty much the same thing. However, if you believe there to be a difference between them in regards to this question: feel free to explain in your answer. $\endgroup$
    – Opifex
    Commented Jul 17 at 20:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Opifex - it's hard to see how much clearer the linked question could be eh? the point of my comment {incredibly, it must be the first time on SE that someone has used comments for the intended purpose :) :) } was to suggest that perhaps the question could be clarified? $\endgroup$
    – Fattie
    Commented Jul 17 at 22:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Finally! "To end the debate, I just checked the wikipedia page". Was that sarcasm??? I just went there and rewrote all the nonsense. $\endgroup$
    – Fattie
    Commented Jul 17 at 22:41

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
30
$\begingroup$

Let's try to be as objective as possible and using sources to answer this terminology-related question.

ICAO definition of aircraft

Any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth's surface.

With this definition, a missile is for sure an aircraft.

FAA definition of aircraft

Device(s) that are used or intended to be used for flight in the air

This, however, depends on the definition of "flight", which is not present in the glossary (it only defines flight time, see discussion here). However, I think we can say that a missile is "able to fly", so I tend to say "yes" also in this case.

EASA definition of aircraft

‘Aircraft’ means a machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface.

Same of ICAO, so, yes, missile is an aircraft.

In conclusions, I think that by definitions of all of the major agency a missile has to be considered as an aircraft.

Sources:

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Aviation Meta, or in Aviation Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. $\endgroup$
    – Jamiec ♦
    Commented Jul 18 at 7:57
  • $\begingroup$ I will be accepting this answer since it did exactly what I was hoping for: multiple answers from different perspectives and/or authorities. $\endgroup$
    – Opifex
    Commented Jul 19 at 21:03
27
$\begingroup$

Most missiles are aircraft by any sensible definition of the term.

We all agree that they're not airplanes

Au contraire, many missiles are airplanes. Look at a Tomahawk cruise missile- stick a pilot in the front and slap some landing gear on and you basically have a weird-looking airplane. The only thing that truly distinguishes a cruise missile from a typical airplane is the lack of landing gear (something not all planes have anyway- e.g. flying boats).

be an aircraft it needs to be able to transport something or someone

Missiles transport a payload just like any other aircraft. But this is a bad argument anyway- if we rig an airplane to fly without a pilot or payload, it's suddenly not an airplane? Ridiculous.

it mentions that it needs to generate lift from the air for it to be able to be classified an aerodyne

Missiles produce lift just like any other aircraft. How else do you imagine a cruise missile stays aloft?

Many ballistic missiles are spacecraft, not aircraft. By and large, they would work better if the atmosphere weren't there to begin with! There are ballistic missiles that use flight control surfaces to maneuver on reentry, though, and I think it's reasonable to consider these reentry vehicles to be aircraft, specifically gliders.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Aviation Meta, or in Aviation Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. $\endgroup$
    – Jamiec ♦
    Commented Jul 18 at 7:58
20
$\begingroup$

Are missiles aircraft?

Yes, but not for long.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ Just like the mushroom that will keep you fed for the rest of your life... $\endgroup$
    – Michael Hall
    Commented Jul 15 at 17:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ So just curious, would this mean questions about missiles are on topic for this site? (Not directly asking you, OP of this answer, but anyone who knows) $\endgroup$
    – Wyatt
    Commented Jul 18 at 3:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Wyatt aviation.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4292/… $\endgroup$
    – Jamiec ♦
    Commented Jul 18 at 7:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Wyatt This is Aviation SE, as opposed to Aircraft SE, so any topic about missiles on the premise that that are aircraft might still have an additional semantic hurdle to cross. I think it would be fruitless to seek a simple rule that everyone will agree on, but the more tenuously one's question relates to aviation, the more likely pushback becomes. $\endgroup$
    – sdenham
    Commented Jul 18 at 15:02
  • $\begingroup$ I wanted to mark this answer as "Accepted" because I think it's the best one possible, but I think it would give a bad signal to the other people people who have spent a lot of effort in writing their answer :) Upvoted nonetheless! $\endgroup$
    – Opifex
    Commented Jul 19 at 21:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .