Tomahawk may get ship-killer role

[TopTorp '92]

Taken from Enric Volante, “Tomahawk may get ship-killer role.“ (http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/300581)

Raytheon Missile Systems wants to turn its land-attack Tomahawk missile into a ship killer that can do something never done before: Hit a cruising warship from a thousand miles away.

Also, “Everett Tackett, business-development manager of the Tomahawk at Missile Systems, said the technology plan has four goals.” Among them include: Improve the warhead to penetrate a big warship

Seems to me there is a tradeoff here. How can you get a bigger punch at greater distance? Lighter explosives? Lighter fuel? Lighter weapon overall?

[Raptor1]

Err...isn't there already a Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile?

I guess the TASM doesn't have the range of a thousand miles though...

Well, Tanks already have HEAT shape charged shells. It's probably not too difficult to incorporate that to a cruise missle. Also isn't a 500 lb payload standard on TLAMs?

[SUBMAN1]

Exactly. This is turning the TLAM back into its original design with just longer range.

-S

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

So, they are bringing TASM back, except with a more compact seeker unit than was possible in the 80s so the range doesn't get shortened as much? Or are they going to "eat" part of the warhead to ensure the appropriate range?

"Improve" the warhead? Does that mean making it actually better overall, or just more efficient (there's a difference b/w the two).

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

"Improve" the warhead? Does that mean making it actually better overall, or just more efficient (there's a difference b/w the two).

You lost me here. What is the difference between making it better over all and just more efficient?

[Letum]

Aren't they a little slow for this role today?

Am I right in thinking that modern anti-missile systems can deal with much
faster, smaller objects than T-hawks?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

You lost me here. What is the difference between making it better over all and just more efficient?

A simple example. The old warhead is 1000 pounds of TNT. You change it to 1000 pounds of PBXN-whatever, which is a more powerful explosive. All else being equal, the new warhead would be "better overall" (in terms of "bang").

Second case: The old warhead is 1000 pounds of TNT. Because that's too much for the required range, they shafted it to 500 pounds of PBXN-whatever. PBXN (for today's purpose) is about 1.8 times more powerful than TNT, so it is worth about 900 pounds of TNT. In this case the warhead is more efficient but is not "better (more powerful)" overall.

[TopTorp '92]

How do we get bigger bang with greater range? What does it take to punch a hole into the side of a ship?

Also depends on desired result. Do we want to punch a hole in the target or use the missile to damage communications masts & antennas? When I was in the Navy we just wanted to damage his comm's and then move in with torpedos.