TacTom is multi purpose. Has 2x the warhead and 3x the range of the Harpoon. Also has a lot of other useful features that are way ahead of the Harpoon.

Just looked it up. Gotcha. I feel pretty dumb now.

Can a TacTom hit a ship? It doesn't have the radar of the old TASM, but I guess if you keep updating the GPS coords and give a good DSMAC aimpoint...

Tactom is way ahead of Harpoon? Well since one is stricly a land-attack weapon and the other is primarily a ship-attack weapon (with minimal land attack capability only in the latest version) I'm not sure on what basis you are making that comparison.

TacTom, Range 900NM, warhead 1000lbs, capable of striking ships using AMSTE type GPS updates. "It also is able to loiter over a target area for some hours, and with its on-board TV camera, would allow the warfighting commanders to assess battle damage of the target, and, if necessary redirect the missile to any other target." Harpoon - (Other than being removed from the fleet) Range 150NM, warhead 434lbs.

USSR and USA had different ideas about navies form the very begining. While USN was going on carriers USSR/Russia was building submarines and large surface ships. The submarine fleet was and still is the back bone of the Russian navy. The Kirov class cruisers (4 planned, 2 in service at the moment with some ploblems, yes) were designed to attack and sink 1 us carrier with one hit (granit or uran missiles i forgot). Plus the russian built ASM missiles have a loger range and can be fitted with nuclear warhead. If such a missile can sink a 100,000 tons carrier, it will destroy a tico class us ship easy.

That's what the Russian's designed them for (sinking a USCVN), but we also designed out NAVY to counter what we saw was the Russian threat (saturation attack). Now tell me this; who do you think has had more success in the design AND IMPLEMENTATION of their kit? The Russian's can barely get Ivan the Great out of port without it ALMOST blowing up...

The Falklands, 1982. We didn't send the SSN's, but we still had HMS Tiger in service, so who wins, HMS Tiger or the Belgrano? http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-50_mkN5_Tiger_pic.jpg> http://www.esgn.edu.ar/cee/Ima/Belgrano.jpg>

Sorry Yimmy for one sec, but back to the Kirov, does she not mount heavyweight torpedoes that are only seen in submarines in Western navies? They have got to be a much more potent ASUW (and ASW) weapon than lightweight torp tubes (even if they are Russian and the lightweights are Western)... Okay, back to Yimmys fight. Yes we'd take the Argie fatherless's. Belgrano had already gone down once as the USS Phoenix against a foe 40 years more primitive! That'd do wonders for your confidence in your life expectancy, steaming into action on that...

The Kirov's were sort of equivalent to any carrier they might launch. The planes would of all been on one-way missions just as their missiles were designed. While the path chosen differs the results were identical so to speak.