January 31, 200818 yr Pardon ignorance on this subject, but were tomahwak cruise missiles ever intended for the ASuW role? Recent history has played out its virtues in the land-attack mode. Is the TLAM phraseology indicative of its main, designed, purpose or just its more prevalent role? The question arises from my recent compilation of various ship data forms representative of the 1/2400 and 1/6000 models I currently have. For example, the Slava CG appears to be quite well protected with SAM's and other air defenses. The Bunker Hill (Tico VLS) has a boatload of tomahawks but only 8x Harpoons. Did a presumed 1990's conventional east-west naval engagement envision tamahwaks in an ASuW role? How was then the "take down" of Soviet surface combatants envisioned? I know its a long, long time ago, but I keep thinking of the movie Midway and the countless airstrikes being butchered. Can that plan be "ported" over to the early twenty-first century and a conflict with Russian designed, as well as indiginously deveolped Chinese vessels? Thanks for humoring me.
January 31, 200818 yr It sure did. It was the The BGM-109B TASM (Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile), the first conventionally armed version of the Tomahawk. It replaced the guidance unit of the TLAM with the guidance unit and the J band DSQ-28 active radar seeker (in modified form) from the RGM-84 Harpoon. The seeker was frequency agile, apparently able to to selectively choose high value targets and reportedly possessing some home on-jam capability. It was also capable of conducting a series of "expanding box" search patterns, allowing the missile to fly in a serpentine fashion to fully search the uncertainty zone. There was also a passive ESM system called PI/DF (Passive Identification/Direction Finding), designed to direct TASM against larger warship targets, supposedly through detection of their large air search radars. Selectable terminal maneuvers after target lock-on included short pop-ups from the sea skimming flight profile to try and get a better fix on the target position, and/or course changes to attack from an unexpected direction. In the terminal phase, TASM could attack at sea skimming level or from above after a final pop-up maneuver (like Harpoon). It also replaced the W-80 nuclear warhead with a 455 kg WDU-25/B blast/frag high explosive warhead. The big warhead, though, cut range to about 250 nm. The objective was to provide a really long range (250 nm) anti-ship missile, but the whole concept had problems: * a TASM flying out to max range would take nearly 30 minutes to get there, and during this time, a decently fast warship target might travel as far as 15 or 20 miles * the guidance system had no IFF capability, raising ROE issues * there were some reported difficulties with target resolution and ECCM performance Some potential solutions were explored, such as using helicopters to provide over the horizon targeting data, or even handing off to a targeting platform like the P-3 Orion, but these just really limited the flexibility of the weapon. About the time the nuclear TLAMs went ashore in 1991, and after the collapse of the USSR, the TASMs were withdrawn. Some 200 Block I TASMs were remanufactured into Block III TLAMs at a cost of about a million bucks each. (It was a bit more than just an upgrade, as with the TLAM-N conversions, because everything from the wings forward was modified). The TASM mission profile went something like this: (1) TASM is launched and its solid rocket booster takes it into ballistic trajectory until the booster burns out shortly thereafter. (2) Switching to turbojet, TASM descends to low altitude cruise trajectory of approx 15 m. (3) Just before reaching the target zone, TASM climbs to search altitude of approx 100 m. (4) At search altitude, TASM activates its active radar seeker and/or passive receivers and acquires the target. (5) After target acquisition, TASM descends back to low altitude. (6) TASM executes evasive maneuvers. (7) In terminal phase, TASM re-acquires the target. (8) TASM executes terminal maneuver and impacts with the target.
January 31, 200818 yr Author Thanks a lot Brad. So feeling my way through this... What would be the US/Western Nation ASuW weapon of choice in a medium to high intensity naval conflict, should one come to pass in the next 20 years or so?
January 31, 200818 yr Thanks a lot Brad. So feeling my way through this... What would be the US/Western Nation ASuW weapon of choice in a medium to high intensity naval conflict, should one come to pass in the next 20 years or so? Moving target capable JDAM or some variant thereof. See Maritime Strike using the F-22 Raptor (Oh my, he's quoting Carlo Kopp .. yeah, so ? Ssometimes he has useful things to say. ) I expect everyone will agree that we're no longer likely to be seeing mass missile exchanges between large blue water fleets, but rather small, focused engagements against individual ships or small groups of ships.
January 31, 200818 yr Thanks a lot Brad. So feeling my way through this... What would be the US/Western Nation ASuW weapon of choice in a medium to high intensity naval conflict, should one come to pass in the next 20 years or so? Hmm, buy some Brahmos from India because we don't have a decent anti-ship missile (moving target JDAM seems about the best we have at present...)? I really think it is time for a Harpoon replacement, long past time actually, something much faster and stealthier, and ideally capable of off-board targeting when the situation permits.
January 31, 200818 yr Author Hmm, buy some Brahmos from India I have some BrahMos missiles on my refitted Indian Rajput DDG. Look out PLAN Sovremennyy Type 956EM! Plan to game out the missile engagement only of BrahMos vs Sovrem over the next day or two, dependent upon when I can get down into the basement unimpeded.
January 31, 200818 yr Author Moving target capable JDAM or some variant thereof. hmm...would that require getting well within the defensive SAM envelope...will have to look at that. Guess that means employing some more offensive jamming. Off-hand has Moving Target JDAM's appeared yet in H4? I do not recall so, now I'll have to breeze through my Naval Sitreps again.
January 31, 200818 yr Author ...About the time the nuclear TLAMs went ashore in 1991, and after the collapse of the USSR, the TASMs were withdrawn. Some 200 Block I TASMs were remanufactured into Block III TLAMs at a cost of about a million bucks each. (It was a bit more than just an upgrade, as with the TLAM-N conversions, because everything from the wings forward was modified). So TASM no more?
January 31, 200818 yr Moving target capable JDAM or some variant thereof. hmm...would that require getting well within the defensive SAM envelope...will have to look at that. Guess that means employing some more offensive jamming. Very few navies have long range area defense SAMs for their ships. In most instances, it's gonna be point defense or local area defense. In the same ballpark as the present JDAM, I suppose. However, adding a set of wings (eg. Diamond Back) to JDAM could increase range as much as 300-400 percent. Off-hand has Moving Target JDAM's appeared yet in H4? I do not recall so, now I'll have to breeze through my Naval Sitreps again. I don't know.
January 31, 200818 yr Author From today's news ... HG Current Events Nicely done and on-topic. H4.1 Annex D lists: Tomahawk Block IIIA (BGM-109C): I&GPS Guidance. 1000nm surface range. 25nm minimum range. 475kts speed. VLow max. VLow min. Cruise trajectory. 454kg warhead. 91DP's. Stealthy signature. NOE capable (over-land, but we're talk ASuW). Would this be what I'm looking for? The Bunker Hill form lists Block III compliance.
January 31, 200818 yr Author From today's news ... HG Current Events Nicely done and on-topic. H4.1 Annex D lists: Tomahawk Block IIIA (BGM-109C): I&GPS Guidance. 1000nm surface range. 25nm minimum range. 475kts speed. VLow max. VLow min. Cruise trajectory. 454kg warhead. 91DP's. Stealthy signature. NOE capable (over-land, but we're talk ASuW). Would this be what I'm looking for? The Bunker Hill form lists Block III compliance. Doh! Harpoon Block III!
January 31, 200818 yr Thinking of HC and the ability to use some SAMs also in the anti-ship role but not thinking they can be used over the horizon brought me to a quick Google search and http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-arme...range-2518.html . So, can the SM-2 and company use off-board targeting or relay via helo over the horizon? That would make the SAMs a decent anti-ship missile against most targets imho.
January 31, 200818 yr Author So, can the SM-2 and company use off-board targeting or relay via helo over the horizon? That would make the SAMs a decent anti-ship missile against most targets imho. Interesting...I'll look at my stuff again tonight. I know that they can be used...but OTH...hmm.
Create an account or sign in to comment