The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




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.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Does the U.S.N. use the anti-ship tomahawk or not?
jessmo_24    12/18/2006 2:41:39 AM
link

I have heard somewhere that its not in use any more.

Isnt the possible to use the block 4 for anti-ship duty?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
gf0012-aust       12/18/2006 3:31:37 AM

link

I have heard somewhere that its not in use any more.

Isnt the possible to use the block 4 for anti-ship duty?

why would you use a TLAM for anti-shipping?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       12/18/2006 5:01:21 PM
In the 80's there was a special varient of the Tommahawk with a ~450km range and speed of ~0.7 mach, specially designed as an anti-ship version, but was withdrawn from service in the 90's.

As according to my memory of a book I have upstairs.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer       12/18/2006 5:33:19 PM
The TASM?  It's in Dangerous Waters, but the manual says that it has been withdrawn from service and it's only there because of artistic licence.
 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       12/18/2006 8:05:15 PM
Because it has far more range than anything the chinese can mount on
a ship.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/18/2006 8:43:59 PM

Because it has far more range than anything the chinese can mount on
a ship.


there's a bit of a fallacy with thinking that range gives you depth of flexibility - it doesn't.  It also gives the other side more time to apply countermeasures - and to work out what is firing at them due to weapons characteristics.
if you want to kill a skimmer - the best choice is a sub.
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Blackshoe    Daydreams   12/20/2006 1:35:56 AM
TASM, Sure pull the trigger and stay the hell out of its way!
 
Wait, there might be a place for this in the order of battle, but it would require an important augment.  Man in the loop control and sensor feedback to an operator. Sort of an ROV-TASM. I've alway though that the real thing the Tomahawk lacked was a return to base feature.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       2/8/2007 2:36:01 AM
The TASM isn't in service anymore. But there's no reason why the Navy can't order more if they wanted them, plus upgrades from today's level of technology. Yes, you "should" be able to use a Block 4 TLAM against a large ship that isn't moving too fast. It's supposed to have some sort of optical or IR camera and it can be remote-controlled to hit any new targets that are detected.
 
Quote    Reply

scuttlebut steve    what about TLAM   2/9/2007 8:24:49 PM
can the land attack tomahawks attack ships effectively?
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       2/9/2007 8:45:12 PM
Maybe it's because the ruskies, Indians, Taiwanesse and possibly the chinese navies all have supersonic speed ramjet powered anti ship missiles that move at twice or 3 times the speed of the slow cruise tomahawk. If the hostiles approach innocently and come within range of their "ruskie sunburn" supersonic missile range. Then even if the tomahawk or harpoon were fired from the USN vessel, the enemy ramjet missile when fired later would still be able to hit the USN ship before the radar operator learns of any tomahawk strike.

None the less I believe the USN is developing their own "sunburn" or they are going to buy the Taiwaneese design and make it in the USA.
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       2/9/2007 11:19:23 PM
The US Navy prefers to use aircraft to attack enemy warships. They just launch wave after wave of aircraft carrying Harpoons, HARMs, and all sorts of guided glide/free-fall bombs until the enemy vessels run out of defensive missiles. Then it's all over for the bad guys. At that point you can send a helicopter to sink the enemy warship. I think the US Navy should develop a long-range supersonic anti-ship missile, too. It will give them the option to launch a counter-attack within minutes of a surprise attack. Airstrike can take hours to plan, prep, launch, and hit the enemy.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       2/11/2007 6:15:08 AM
Herc the Merc has already posted that there will be a lighter aircraft launched Bramos supersonic missile, don't know if it will be ready.
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn       2/11/2007 7:39:40 PM

I would not expect the US Navy to develop a super sonic anti-ship missile anytime soon.

The latest Harpoon block is one of if not the very best anti-ship missile in the world. It is not only virtually impossible to detect at launch, it is one of the most difficult missiles to track OTH even with the most modern radar systems. Why replace a missile thought to be at least in the top 3 of its type?

I am starting to think the Brahmos is one of the most overrated missiles produced since the Sunburn. In the end I think the latest Harpoons and latest Exocets kill the Brahmos on the foreign sales markets.   
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn       2/11/2007 7:42:33 PM

Isnt the possible to use the block 4 for anti-ship duty?
Yes.

Specific details as to why are mostly classified, but in the US military munitions guide which is not classified the RGM-109E is listed as a weapon that can be utilized in the anti-ship role.
 
Quote    Reply

gibbsrg    gibbsrg   9/19/2009 7:49:24 PM
What smaller missiles like the harpoon and exocet lack in speed and warhead size is offset to a large degree by the number of platforms that can carry them.  Big Russian missiles generally need big ships and planes to carry them.  Yes, the are air-launched versions of some of them, but how many can a fighter-sized plane carry?  One perhaps?  Harpoons and exocet type missiles can be carried on pretty much anything your navy owns.  This is especially true of the small missile boats, that typically mount 4-8.  Try putting a sunburn or similiar sized missile on one of those vessels.  You have to design ships around those bigger missiles.  Harpoons and like missiles can be back gitted to anything.  Versatility is the small, subsonic missile's strength.  That's why even Russia still makes them.  Picture a dozen super hornets with 4 harpoons each bearing down on a Chinese task force from 400miles out.  Bye-bye!!  Sovremmny (I don't feel like looking up the proper spelling right now..lol) and sunburn won't save you now!
 
Quote    Reply

LB    RGM-109E   9/20/2009 1:39:48 AM
To answer your question yes the RGM-109E can hit moving targets and Raytheon announced a few months ago that they were going to improve the capability of the RGM-109E vs ships.  How good an anti surface missile it actually is a rather open question.  It's certainly not purpose designed although it has been speculated that it can hit specific parts of a ship.
 
In any case it's interesting to imagine the USN running out of aircraft or submarines to sink an enemy surface ship and then having to rely on a long range cruise missile.  It's also worth asking what is the range of the SM-2/RIM-66 in anti surface mode given every USN surface ship that can carry RGM-109 already has SM-2.  During Operation Praying Mantis the USN in one engagement fired 3 Standard missiles against an Iranian FAC, which stopped it, and later 1 Harpoon.  One Iranian Frigate was sunk by A-6's and another stopped in the water by A-6 which we then allowed Iran to tow home.   The USN has many tools that can sink ships.
 
Quote    Reply



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