I assume it’s for intimidation or morale, but is naming your missiles “Storm Shadow”, for example, really needed or helpful? Or is it one of those nebulous “couldn’t hurt” traditions?
In addition to morale and intimidation, it also helps avoid confusion in terminology. One may lose track of letters and numbers in one’s head and get AIM-7, AIM-154, AGM-114, AGM-84, UGM-133 and AGM-65 mixed up, but “Sparrow,” “Phoenix,” “Hellfire,” “Harpoon,” “Trident” and “Maverick” are much harder to confuse.
And it gives the weapons personality, which is nice. The Ukrainians have been making stickers and memes called “Saint Javelin, the Protector of Ukraine.” It would be harder to get enthused about “Saint FGM-148, the Protector of Ukraine.”
You’re not going to get many 19 year old guys all fired up about deploying the Fluffy Kittenizer 2.0, or the L.I.M.P. N.O.O.D.L.E.*
*Large Infantry Manned Patrol Nuclear Ordnance Obstruction DemoLition Equipment, it’s a perfectly sensible name!
Have you seen the marketing materials that these big weapons suppliers put out? They work hard to get the product/systems names just right. Government purchasers are people (i.e., consumers), too.
“Now from Deneral Gynamics! The EcoGreen Cluster Munitions System! For a greener, cleaner battlefield at a lower cost!”
Even if there is no official name, the troops are gonna name the thing anyhow. So the authorities may as well pick an official name. And ideally one that the troops don’t laugh at and rename anyhow.
The USAF’s A-10’s official moniker is “Thunderbolt II”, named in honor of the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt of WWII. The problem is nobody likes “junior” or II or III attached to their name. So the troops christened it “Warthog” and so it shall remain.
The USAF’s F-16’s official Moniker is “Fighting Falcon”. So named because it was the smaller companion to the then-shiny new F-15 Eagle and the name “Falcon” had been used already for a then-obsolete air-to-air missile. The problem is nobody in US service likes two-word names. So the troops christened it “Viper” after then-current Battlestar Galactica space fighters and so it shall remain.
The Brits have always preferred much more poetic names for things, and especially munitions vs the Americans. The Chinese are even worse, with things like “Avenging Tiger”, “Resolute Destroyer”, and “Lotus of Doom”. I exaggerate slightly here for effect, but not by much.
Humans have named individual weapons for time immemorial. The impulse seems to be deeply buried.
Since modern militaries don’t have distinctive individual weapons, but weapons systems turned out in the dozens or thousands, naming transfers to the weapon system: a combination of legend and marketing.
Not to threadshit, but I’m curious why this seems to be a concern to OP. To flip the question, what’s the harm in giving a handy label to a weapon?
However, I agree with an implicit criticism in OP:
naming your missiles “Storm Shadow”
This is what happens when you consult with Michael Moorcock for branding ideas.
It’s not always badass names: for example, the Katyusha rocket launcher (an American equivalent might be “Kitty”… I always reasoned the warheads were the hello from Katyusha, that fly after the sun), and you have the guy who called his plane “Enola Gay”.
Also:
It soothes the public’s notion of war a bit by making it sound cool. Names that didn’t make the cut: Orphan Maker, Amputator, Body Shredder, Unidentifiable Bitsmaker, You’ll Never See Your Sonsdaughtersparentsoranyoneelseeveragainerator.
I would imagine that cool names might have a small but measurable impact on funding as well. Congressman X is probably more likely to vote to approve a “cool” weapon than one with a laughably bad name.
I always forget what the official F-35 name is, which suffers from the same “Jr” issue (it’s officially “Lightning II”). I believe pilots (at least some of them) call it “Panther”, similar to how the F-16 is “Viper”. But for the F-22, “Raptor” stuck - because it is cool.
You have the “Daisy Cutter”:
but it only mentions cutting vegetation.
SWORDS seems to be what they are calling a certain model of military robot.
At the risk of derailing the thread, I can’t help but recall the incident where a man in Florida said he was going to “kill his neighbors with kindness.” Little did they know that he had a machete that he had named Kindness.
Sometimes that leads to the succesor taking over the name - e.g. the F-4 of the 60s and 70s was the Phantom II but who remembers the OG one?
Then there’s the themed names. Army helos named after Native American tribes (Kiowa, Blackhawk, Apache), tanks after generals (Sherman, Patton, Abrams). Grumman-made fighters named (Wild- Hell- Bear- Tom-)cat.
Grumman (later Northrop-Grumman) had a famous series of US Navy fighters with feline naming: Wildcat, Hellcat, Tigercat, Bearcat, Panther, Cougar, Jaguar, Tiger, Super Tiger, and Tomcat.
ETA: Like @JRDelirious edited to say.
Indeed - Excalibur, Durandal, Joyeuse, Glamdring, Curtana, Gramr, Zulfiqar…the list is endless. Humans like to name things.
Hound: “Of course you named your sword”
Arya: “Many people name their swords”
Hound: “Many C@&ts”
The first two of which are also names for modern missile systems, FWIW.
I think it’s more PR for both internal and external purposes. Voters and legislators are more likely to vote for the FGM-365 DOOMHAMMER than they are the FGM-365 Polite Fluffy Cloud, when it comes to buying stuff to wreak havoc on one’s enemies.
And internally, I think it gives the troops a bit of a badass feel if they’re deploying something called the DoomHammer than if they’re deploying the SereneCloud. Of course, they’ll probably give it their own name which is either mocking or sardonic if there’s anything approaching a good reason.
Even from the early days Lockheed named all their products, military or otherwise, after something at least vaguely stellar. Companies picking a naming theme for their products also has a long history.
And yet, Boaty McBoatface won in a popularity contest.
Which is why you don’t put it to an internet poll.