NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Naval Air Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

A Tomahawk That Can Hunt You Down

May 9, 2009: The latest version of U.S. Tomahawk (BGM-109 Block 4) missile, is getting upgraded so that it can hit moving targets. This is mainly intended to turn the Tomahawk into an anti-ship missile, although it can also hit moving land targets. Currently, the Block 4 costs about $1.7 million each, weighs 1.4 tons, has a range of 1,500 kilometers and carries a half ton warhead. It moves to its target at a speed of 880 kilometers an hour. Since production began four years ago, 1,300 have been made since. The Tomahawk was introduced 26 years ago, and over 6,000 have been manufactured. The U.S. Navy has fired over 1,900 in combat and training.

The United States is developing a successor to the Tomahawk cruise missile, that will be heavier (2.2 tons, versus 1.4 tons), have a longer range (2,000 kilometers versus 1,500) and a one ton warhead (twice the size of the Tomahawks.) The new missile will be stealthier, and use a combination of guidance and targeting systems (to improve the chances of success). Price will probably be the key factor in whether this new missile ever enters service. The new Cruise Missile XR (for Extended Range) will probably cost twice that, or more. The cruise missile, when it showed up in the 1980s, was one of the first UAVs, it just wasn't reusable. But UAVs that carry bombs and missiles, and can be reused, are going to provide competition for a new, $3 million, Cruise Missile XR.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article INFANTRY: The Impossible Lightness


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
JFKY    I would be intrigued   5/9/2009 9:32:36 AM
to hear from those more knowledgeable or who CLAIM to be more knowledgeable about a little blurb I read at
"Information Dissemination" on this weapon.  Basically Galrahn asks, "Can't we develop a surface to surface missile that was designed AFTER the Carter Administration?"  Harpoon, and the Tomahawk are early 1970's designs, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Grand SLAM, and the various iterations of the Tomahawk are merely variations on these weapons.  Are either viable in the face of defenses that have progressed over 30 years?  They may be fine for smacking Terry Terrorist in his mud-hut, but will they actually penetrate the defenses of a Russian/Chinese Surface Action Group?  There is a throw -in from the site that points out the surface navy is even more beholden to aviation to accomplish anything now, than ever.  Is this a good thing?  By "accomplish anything" Galrahn means anti-surface warfare....
 
I have NO idea...I would be interested in hearing from some folks about this.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/9/2009 2:47:08 PM
Just a slight correction before we begin. The SLAM is a variation of the Harpoon, not Tomahawk.

Yes, Harpoon is a viable weapon, even the old-ass versions we use. The Brit version is even better. The Harpoon III will be better yet, if it doesn't fall to the budget cutter's axe. Harpoon often gets a bad rap because people get the details of the export version and make the assumption all Harpoons are like that. They are not.
 
They don't talk about stealth or the missile's flight profile because they don't need to. They have a single customer in mind, the USN. The French, the Russians and to a lesser extent the Chinese publicize their missiles' capabilities because they want a lot of customers.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       5/9/2009 7:29:15 PM

"Can't we develop a surface to surface missile that was designed AFTER the Carter Administration?"  Harpoon, and the Tomahawk are early 1970's designs, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Grand SLAM, and the various iterations of the Tomahawk are merely variations on these weapons.  Are either viable in the face of defenses that have progressed over 30 years?  They may be fine for smacking Terry Terrorist in his mud-hut, but will they actually penetrate the defenses of a Russian/Chinese Surface Action Group?  There is a throw -in from the site that points out the surface navy is even more beholden to aviation to accomplish anything now, than ever.  Is this a good thing?  By "accomplish anything" Galrahn means anti-surface warfare....

The real question you have to ask is "What new capabilities are needed that justify designing a new airframe?"
Because the airframe is probably the only part of the missiles that has not been updated.  Everything else - the engines, warheads, and especially the electronics - have been systematically improved and upgraded.  Proposals for new missiles generally can be divided into two categories, the "we need a bigger missile because ..." and the "we need to add more stealth".  There is also a 3rd category which could be referred to as "keeping up with the Jones" that is unworthy of consideration.
 
The bigger missile proposals have more range, higher speeds, and larger warheads, but would be incompatible with existing launchers and may even require new vessel designs to deploy them.  The longer range and higher speed designs also require significant improvements (which we may already have) in target detection, tracking, and communications to use effectively.  Besides, all of these capabilities are currently available as "multistage missiles" deployed from specialized ships called "aircraft carriers", so do we really need whole new classes of missiles and ships?
 
Stealth proposals are harder to evaluate due to the inherent trade-offs that have to be made and the high cost.  The big question is how much stealthier do you need to be to have a significant effect on overall performance?  A really stealthy missile has to be designed that way from the start, because it effects every other design decision, you cannot decide to add it later.  Stealth is also expensive, so it may be cheaper to buy more of the current missiles and saturate the defenses than sneak through with stealth.
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz    umm   5/9/2009 7:34:26 PM
"The latest version of U.S. Tomahawk (BGM-109 Block 4) missile, is getting upgraded so that it can hit moving targets. This is mainly intended to turn the Tomahawk into an anti-ship missile, although it can also hit moving land targets."
 
There already was an anti-shipping version, the TASM. If it's already been retired from the USN inventory, why are they developing it all over again?
 
Quote    Reply

esmoore5       5/9/2009 8:54:10 PM

"The latest version of U.S. Tomahawk (BGM-109 Block 4) missile, is getting upgraded so that it can hit moving targets. This is mainly intended to turn the Tomahawk into an anti-ship missile, although it can also hit moving land targets."

 

There already was an anti-shipping version, the TASM. If it's already been retired from the USN inventory, why are they developing it all over again?


Because the new version could hit moving targets on land, as well as at sea? As for improving Tomahawk survivability, maybe an afterburning engine: link would help. . . With such an engine, you could set Tomahawk to fly at higher speeds, at the cost of shorter range. Or you could have it cruise to the target at lower speed, then have it accelerate for the final approach. . . This would be similar to what is already done with modern torpedoes, such as the Mk-48 ADCAP.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/9/2009 9:17:28 PM

to hear from those more knowledgeable or who CLAIM to be more knowledgeable about a little blurb I read at

"Information Dissemination" on this weapon.  Basically Galrahn asks, "Can't we develop a surface to surface missile that was designed AFTER the Carter Administration?"  Harpoon, and the Tomahawk are early 1970's designs, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Grand SLAM, and the various iterations of the Tomahawk are merely variations on these weapons.  Are either viable in the face of defenses that have progressed over 30 years?  They may be fine for smacking Terry Terrorist in his mud-hut, but will they actually penetrate the defenses of a Russian/Chinese Surface Action Group?  There is a throw -in from the site that points out the surface navy is even more beholden to aviation to accomplish anything now, than ever.  Is this a good thing?  By "accomplish anything" Galrahn means anti-surface warfare....

 

I have NO idea...I would be interested in hearing from some folks about this.


OK I'll give it a shot. It's not that we can't develop better surface to surface weapons. There just isn't a pressing need. The way we fight is biased toward aircraft so our anti-surface methods will be based on that most often. One reason why a lot of navies rely on SSMs is because they don't have the option of Carriers and air power and the few who do cannot risk it to IADS like AEGIS and CEC which are probably the most advanced in the world. SO they send relatively cheap missiles on one way trips in large numbers and hope to overwhelm the defense by numbers or surprise. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    JFKY   5/9/2009 9:27:04 PM
Galrahn's Information Dissemination and Salamander are 2 of the better maritime discussion blogs around.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Ignoring the comedy acts.   5/9/2009 11:34:37 PM

Galrahn's Information Dissemination and Salamander are 2 of the better maritime discussion blogs around.
Galrahn when he posted here cut away a lot of the BULL.
 
 Why build a new cruise missile?
 
One. The old missiles degrade over time, even when you store them. Every so often you have to refresh or rebuild the inventory.
Two. The last L/O cruise missile wasn't what it was cracked up to be. It was canned for cause. This is round two to get it right.
Three. UAS systems gave us better self-programming robot autopilots and cheaper sensors so we now can build affordable HUNTERS which we can shoot into an area blind as true "aerial torpedoes". That added "range" is for endurance.  
 
Not everything we do is given glory hog press. AARGM, (HARM AGM88E), the X-51 scramdart prototype, and a lot of  oither interestoing F Lob munitions under development never gets press mention. 
 
Claims? Not me. Facts, JFKY.
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/10/2009 12:03:11 AM

to hear from those more knowledgeable or who CLAIM to be more knowledgeable about a little blurb I read at

"Information Dissemination" on this weapon.  Basically Galrahn asks, "Can't we develop a surface to surface missile that was designed AFTER the Carter Administration?"  Harpoon, and the Tomahawk are early 1970's designs, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Grand SLAM, and the various iterations of the Tomahawk are merely variations on these weapons.  Are either viable in the face of defenses that have progressed over 30 years?  They may be fine for smacking Terry Terrorist in his mud-hut, but will they actually penetrate the defenses of a Russian/Chinese Surface Action Group?  There is a throw -in from the site that points out the surface navy is even more beholden to aviation to accomplish anything now, than ever.  Is this a good thing?  By "accomplish anything" Galrahn means anti-surface warfare....
I have NO idea...I would be interested in hearing from some folks about this.


Forgot to cover this JFKY, no PLAN or Russian  Navy Surface action group is going to survive in the open ocean relying on it's own defenses against the USN. It's been proven since WW II that aircraft are very effective when used in the anti-ship role. They can cover far more area much more quickly than a surface ship. Remember, when attacking with SSM you are limited by the range of the weapon. When using an aircraft, you have the much longer range of the aircraft plus the weapon. An addition advantage is that you don't risk a ship when you use aircraft. 

Keep in mind that the PLAN is only just not deploying 2 to 5 ship SAG centered on DDG platforms into the open ocean. This is fine for dealing with neighboring countries and to police illegal fishing but woefully inadequate against anything the USN could bring to bear. If however a USN ship were to sail into the missile range of one of these PLAN SAG then it would be taking considerable and unnecessary risk. Air power is a huge advantage in this kind of exchange. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Comment.   5/10/2009 11:47:25 AM
The Russians then and the PLAN NOW do not intend to go to sea without air support. They are not STUPID.

While the H-8 is, as of the moment, a myth: the H-6 (Badger, all versions) is quite real, the JH-7  is quite real. These AIRCRAFT would have a devil of a time closing to the 80 or so kilometers they need to launch their primitive cruise missiles against USN ships, but like all things not American naval. they are supposed to add to a saturation attack, not BE the saturation attack.
 
The PLAN capability past the first island ring, as of now, is non-existent aside from their pop up cruise missile attacks from their submarines.and ballistic missile bombardment of fixed specified targets. Their modern bliewater navy reminds me of the French Marine, a giunboat based coast defesne fleet with a few blue water prestige surface ships.
 
True at seas presence is non-existent. However as you close the coasts from about 1000 kilometers in, the PRC problem becomes much tougher. They can contest where they concentrate their shore based naval aor power for at least a few days until they run out of planes and missiles.
 
Blackmail for now. We'll see what the PRCs can do when they try to build something like a Backfire.and a decent air launched AShM to go with it in about five years.
 
I think India will beat them to it. Brahmos only needs a bomber that can carry it. India can BUY those (Backfires or even  British Tornadoes).
 
Herald 
     
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   5/10/2009 6:05:06 PM
So defensive..no need....lighten up Francis....interesting set of "facts"...some of them seemed less facts and more speculative, about what could be, but neat...and by speculative that is simply a description not an indictment.
 
I had read some of Information Dissemination and he seemed to know where of he spoke I just thought I'd ask around here you guyz "take" on it.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/10/2009 6:28:32 PM

I had read some of Information Dissemination and he seemed to know where of he spoke I just thought I'd ask around here you guyz "take" on it.

well, as I said before, Galrahns blog is one of the better ones.  I have a lot of respect for him.  He's also connected.  I'd also add, that he's a good bloke, and that in my books rates higher than anyones expertise and capability.

decency first, then ability.

he's got both 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/10/2009 6:44:49 PM
Forgot to cover this JFKY, no PLAN or Russian  Navy Surface action group is going to survive in the open ocean relying on it's own defenses against the USN. It's been proven since WW II that aircraft are very effective when used in the anti-ship role. They can cover far more area much more quickly than a surface ship. Remember, when attacking with SSM you are limited by the range of the weapon. When using an aircraft, you have the much longer range of the aircraft plus the weapon. An addition advantage is that you don't risk a ship when you use aircraft. 

Keep in mind that the PLAN is only just not deploying 2 to 5 ship SAG centered on DDG platforms into the open ocean. This is fine for dealing with neighboring countries and to police illegal fishing but woefully inadequate against anything the USN could bring to bear. If however a USN ship were to sail into the missile range of one of these PLAN SAG then it would be taking considerable and unnecessary risk. Air power is a huge advantage in this kind of exchange. 


have to say I disagree with a bit of this.

PLAN is currently a green water navy.  they only have one blue water fleet and thats based in the south china sea - that will also be their primary warfighting fleet for at least the  next 5-12 years at which point they will have carriers, and they will convert (IMO) to blue water roaming and expeditionary roles.  at that point I would expect the other 2 greenwater fleets to start crossing over and picking up the area currently managed by the south china sea fleet.

as a greenwater navy china is operating under landbased air cover, but, she also is clearly adopting a mahanian approach to economic protection by seeking to expand her jump off points, be they Gwador in Pakistan ir via Myanmar.  She is determined to be able to use carriers in their literal sense, as in independant of air power coverage for protection, and able to project at will without the limitations of air cover.  she has nothing that is able to sustain and protect her fleets outside of an intercontinental  development reach.  she intends to get over that hurdle like tyhe americans, russian/soviet, english and french did. ie by having organic offensive air able to protect the fleet from intruders and able to attack airborne sensor systems near the fleet as it traverses what ever corridor is in the interest of the state.

Cruise missiles and air have been touted as fleet killers ever since  the germans developed radio controled missiles in ww2, and ever since LeMay tried to emasculate the USN and carriers in general.  In fact its LeMays arrogance that led to whats commonly called the "revolt of the admirals" in USN history (Led by Adm Towers).

The Soviets/Russians also thought  that they had the goods on the US when they developed 3000+km ant-surface, anti-shipping missiles, and they also thought they could intimidate american CBG/SAGs with regiments of bears and Backfires armed with those IR/Intercontinetal ranged systems.  They were wrong, and as they basically admitted, it was intent and posturing that was more important as they didn't think that they could mortally damage and/or deter any more than 20% of the USN's carrier forces and supporting assets.

Airpower is still "overstated" IMO - esp with current technology where the defenders have far more capability at their disposal than ever before.  For the PLAN/PLAAF to have any impact upon lifting their kill rate, they basically need to have Regiments of intercontinental ranged strikers at every major bluewater location - and they need decent support systems and weapons systems to back it up.

They're decades away from that.  The further out you launch, the more you telegraph intent and the more you allow the defender to choose options.

 

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/10/2009 7:10:57 PM
OK GF I read your post and I don't see much where we disagree except with regard to Air Power being overstated. The short and dirty version of what I'm saying to JFKY is that niether the PLAN or Russian Navy would have a prayer in hells chance against the kinds of firepower the USN could bring to bear anywhere and on any body of water. The USN/USAF could make either Navy surface vessels completely combat ineffective inside of a week without exposing anything other than aircraft and their weapons to defenses. I don't mean for that to imply such a war would be cheap or that the Russians or Chinese don't have some ways to return the favors but the survivability of enemy surface combatants against the USN/USAF is dubious at best and best measured in double digit hours. So...

...For these reasons I don't see a USN AShM program as an urgent mater given the current capability and other priorities.

Just a pair of BUFFs, or Hornet Squadron in Sea Control operations with proper ISR would be enough to make any non US SAG combat ineffective. Hugging the littorals so as to stay under land based coverage would not protect either. 

 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Another Question   5/10/2009 7:57:44 PM
It's all very good and well to talk about the strike capacity of the US Navy's CVN's BUT if that strike capacity is based on a Harpoon, how are things any different than if an Arleigh Burke fires them?  And if the harpoon is ineffective it will be ineffective if fired from an F/A-18 as well.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy