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).

[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.

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?

Originally Posted by Letum

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

CIWS puts a rain of lead in the air. I'm not sure it would stop a TLAM armed appropriately.


We have all been dancing around it, but a nuclear weapon of approriate yield would kill any ship.

[Letum]

I was thinking more of missile systems than CIWS, but I don't see why
CIWS wouldn't work as well.

[Max2147]

The TASM really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Anything that's too big or too well-defended for a Harpoon will have no trouble shooting down an incoming TASM.

The US is really behind the curve when it comes to anti-ship missiles, although we also have less need for them (since we own most of the big ships out there).

[TopTorp '92]

Originally Posted by 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?

Harpoon is definitely faster but can't get the 1000nm range. TASM was alot like Harpoon but couldn't execute waypoints, & change altitude and speed at each waypoint. Neither has the 1000nm range called for in the above article.

The article fails to mention the kind of platform the weapon would be launched from. Fired from submarine? Article silent on that issue.

So how do we make a longer-lasting TASM with a bigger punch?

Are there lighter explosives with more power than currently in service?

Logistics aside, what kind of firepower does it take to punch a hole in the side of a armored warship? How do they do it already with tanks?

Mmm . . . TASM may be getting a major face-lift.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by TopTorp '92

armored warship?

Are there really still ships out there that could be called "Armored warships".
I thought the age of concrete vests was over.

[bookworm_020]

To me it seems like they are recycling an old idea again!

[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.