Upgrade to Tomahawk to hit moving targets at sea
Thread Starter
Upgrade to Tomahawk to hit moving targets at sea
If I remember right, Tomahawk's original design was as a longer range surface to surface missile than Harpoon. (200+ nm versus < 100 nm) The land attack version got all of the press, but the "over the horizon" missile was meant for the War at Sea scenario. As I recall the TASM (Tomahawk B) (TASM meaning "Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile" ) was pulled from inventory during the 1990's, but memory does not serve on the "why" beyond a general lack of money and the DoD having fallen in love with TLAM during Desert Storm.
Nothing new under the sun, I suppose, beyond what is doubtless a better mid range and terminal guidance package than formerly.
Nothing new under the sun, I suppose, beyond what is doubtless a better mid range and terminal guidance package than formerly.
The target set for TASM had largely beggared off in the 90s. Combined with a peace dividend and the silver bullet perception of the TLAM, budget squeeze said "get rid and convert to LA version"
Salute!
Tink ya got basic story right, Wolf.
Only reason I can see for an anti-sea tgt Tomahawk is the lack of Harpoons for the subs we now have. Tho, there seems to be a program to re-introduce Harpoons for the subs in 4 or 5 years.
The Tomahawk is more expensive than the Harpoon, and many more have been employed in actual combat. Suckers work!!! Maybe it's the price tag as many more Tomahawks could be cheaper than drastically improved Harpoons.
I cannot see how an anti-ship missile can be accurately targeted from 200 miles away. Doggone ships move at 20 knots or so, huh? The company claims the new guys can be re-targeted in-flight and even "hold" before the terminal phase. Sheeesh.
The later Harpoons are very capable, and are easy to employ from attack aircraft and even patrol planes.
Gums opines...
Tink ya got basic story right, Wolf.
Only reason I can see for an anti-sea tgt Tomahawk is the lack of Harpoons for the subs we now have. Tho, there seems to be a program to re-introduce Harpoons for the subs in 4 or 5 years.
The Tomahawk is more expensive than the Harpoon, and many more have been employed in actual combat. Suckers work!!! Maybe it's the price tag as many more Tomahawks could be cheaper than drastically improved Harpoons.
I cannot see how an anti-ship missile can be accurately targeted from 200 miles away. Doggone ships move at 20 knots or so, huh? The company claims the new guys can be re-targeted in-flight and even "hold" before the terminal phase. Sheeesh.
The later Harpoons are very capable, and are easy to employ from attack aircraft and even patrol planes.
Gums opines...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recalled seeing the unclassified footage from the test that freeze frame was from...found it again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGoJl8Lr46g
The 'Poon's a good weapon. About TASM: I recall from training a few decades ago that some Soviet ASM's had a capability for mid course guidance. I recall there being some talk about trying to fit mid course guidance modules into the SH-60B's follow on (SH-60R now MH-60R) that could talk to TASM or Harpoon type missiles. I have no idea if that idea survived the Clinton era budget cuts. Might have been one of those "neat idea, no funding" deals.
